6X?3  83 

SecttOQ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 
in  2014 


littps://arcliive.org/details/constitutionalpaOObuck_0 


OTHER  WORKS  BY  THE 
SAME  AUTHOR 


Theory  and  Practice  of  Foreign  Missions.  The 
Nathan  Graves  Foundation  Lectures  dehvered  before 
Syracuse  University,    limo.    Net,  75  cents. 

The  Fundamentals  and  Their  Contrasts.  The 
Quillian  Lectures  for  1905.    12mo.    Net,  $1.00. 

Christians  and  the  Theater.     12mo.     60  cents. 

A  Hereditary  Consumptive's  Successful  Battle 
FOR  Life.     12mo.    50  cents.     Paper,  30  cents. 

Travels  in  Three  Continents.  Europe,  Africa, 
and  Asia.    Illustrated.    8vo.  $2.50. 

Extemporaneous   Oratory.      Crown  8vo.  $1.50. 

Faith-Healing,  Christian  Science,  and  Kindred 
Phenomena.    Crown  8vo.  $1.25. 

A  History  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States. 
8vo.    Net,  $2.00. 


(     OCT  23  1912 

CONSTITUTIONAL  ^^^Sioo,^ 

AND 

PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

OF  THE 

METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH 


BY/ 

JAMES  M.  BUCKLEY 


NEW  YORK:  EATON  &  MAINS 
CINCINNATI:  JENNINGS  &  GRAHAM 


Copyright,  1912,  by 
JAMES  M.  BUCKLEY 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

Explanatory   vii 

FROM  EMBURY  TO  COKE 

I.  John  Wesley  and  Wesleyan  Methodism   3 

II.  Wesleyan  Methodism  in  America   8 

III.  American  Methodism  Organized   16 

IV.  The  First  Ecclesiastical  Conflict   24 

V.  A  Commissioner  with  Extraordinary  Powers   37 

A  CHURCH  IN  THE  MAKING 

VI.  Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  . .  47 

VII.  The  Initial  Years  of  the  Church   51 

VIII.  A  Hazardous  Experiment   58 

IX.  The  First  Regular  General  Conference   64 

X.  The  Struggle,   Defeat,   and  Secession   of  James 

O'Kelly   70 

XI.  The  General  Conference  of  1796   81 

XII.  The  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804   87 

XIII.  Growing  Demand  for  Equitable  Methods  of  Legis- 

lation   93 

XIV.  The  Last  Nondelegated  General  Conference   101 

XV.  Comments  on  Preceding  Chapter   114 

THE  CREATION  OF  A  WRITTEN  CONSTITUTION 

XVI.  The  Word  "Constitution"   121 

XVII.  The  "Constitution  of  the  General  Conference".  . . .  128 
XVIII.  Radical  Differences  Between  the  Constitution  of 
THE  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  that  of  the 
United  States   133 

INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  SEPARATE  PARTS  OF 
THE  CONSTITUTION 

XIX.  Essentials  of  a  Constitutional  General  Confer- 
ence  139 

XX.  Dates    of    Regular    General    Conferences  and 

Methods  of  Convening  Them   146 

XXI.  The  General  Conference  Ready  for  Business   151 

XXII.  The  First  Restrictive  Rule   157 

XXIII.  The  Third  Restrictive  Rule   170 

XXIV.  The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued)   184 

V 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

XXV.  The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued)   193 

XXVI.  The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued)   201 

XXVII.  The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued)   209 

XXVIII.  The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued)   222 


XXIX.  Fourth,  Fifth,  and  Sixth  Restrictive  Rules,  and 

the  Proviso  for  Change  of  Restrictive  Rules.  228 

CANADIAN  METHODISM'S  SEPARATION  FROM  THE  METH- 
ODIST EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 
XXX.  Separation  of  Canadian  Methodism  from  the  Meth- 


odist Episcopal  Church   237 

BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  1844-45 

XXXI.  The  Bisection  of  the  Church   249 

XXXII.  The  Bisection  of  the  Church  (Continued)   256 

XXXIII.  The  Bisection  of  the  Church  (Continued)   265 

XXXIV.  The  Bisection  of  the  Church  (Continued)   277 

XXXV.  Final  Change  in  the  Discipline  in  Regard  to 

Slavery   286 

XXXVI.  Lay  Delegation   290 

XXXVII.  Lay  Delegation  (Continued)   298 

XXXVIII.  Lay  Delegation  (Continued)   307 

XXXIX.  Lay  Delegation  (Concluded)   312 

XL.  The  Revision  of  the  Constitution   321 

PRINCIPAL  UNSUCCESSFUL  ATTEMPTS  TO  CHANGE  THE 
CONSTITUTION 

XLI.  The  Presiding  Eldership   329 

XLII.  The  Presiding  Eldership  (Continued)   339 

XLIII.  Proposed  Veto  Power  for  Bishops   348 

XLIV.  "Bishops  for  Races  and  Languages"   354 

PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

XLV.  Beginnings  of  Organization   359 

XLVI.  Progressive  Enlargement   364 

XLVII.  Some  Decisions  by  the  Bishops   369 

XLVIII.  Rational  Rules  and  their  Rational  Use   374 

XLIX.  "Without  Debate"   380 

L.  An  Unparalleled  Free  School  of  Parliamentary 

Law   387 


Bibliography   401 

Index   407 


EXPLANATORY 


This  volume  is  not  intended  to  be  a  general  history  of 
Methodism,  nor  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

It  is  divided  into  two  unequal  parts.  The  first,  and 
by  far  the  larger,  is  devoted  to  the  history  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  tracing  it  from 
its  incipiency  through  the  vicissitudes  of  the  one  hundred 
years  of  its  existence.  It  deals  with  documents,  debates, 
and  persons,  with  officers  and  orders.  General,  Annual, 
and  Quarterly  Conferences,  with  the  United  States, 
South  America,  Europe,  India  and  other  parts  of  Asia, 
and  Africa,  and  islands  of  the  sea.  so  far  as  Churches 
and  Missions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  those 
countries  are  affected  by  the  Constitution. 

The  second  part  relates  to  the  parliamentary  history  of 
the  denomination ;  but  in  no  sense  is  it  intended  to  be 
a  complete  discussion  of  that  subject.  It  does,  however, 
attempt  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  debate,  its 
methods  and  its  generic  rules,  and  to  show  that 
frequently  parliamentary  tactics  exert  almost — and  some- 
times entirely — as  much  influence  in  the  final  disposition 
of  resolutions  as  the  intrinsic  value  of  the  subject  under 
consideration. 

Quotations  are  complete  upon  the  subjects  they  treat, 
and  are  numerous  to  prevent  the  misunderstanding  so 
common  when  the  words  of  an  author  are  substituted  by 
those  of  the  writer  of  the  book. 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  most  cases  academic  and 
honorary  titles  have  been  omitted.  This  was  done  for  the 
vii 


viii 


EXPLANATORY 


purpose  of  brevity ;  and  the  names  are  so  well  known,  in 
most  instances,  as  to  make  titles  superfluous. 
With  respect  to  this  work : 

If  I  have  done  well,  and  as  is  fitting  the  story,  it  is 
that  which  I  desired:  hut  if  slenderly  and  meanly,  it  is 
that  which  I  could  attain  unto. — 2  Maccabees,  chapter  15, 
verse  38. 


FROM  EMBURY  TO  COKE 


CHAPTER  I 


John  Wesley  and  Wesleyan  Methodism 

Who,  among  those  that  heard  John  Weslev  forbidden 
to  preach  in  the  church  of  which  his  father  had  been 
rector  for  foi"ty  years,  and  of  which  he  himself  had 
been  curate,  could  have  dreamed  that  above  twenty-five 
millions  of  adhei'ents  to  the  society  which  he  founded 
would,  in  every  part  of  the  habitable  globe,  on  the  two 
hundredth  anniversary  of  his  birth,  gratefully  mention 
his  name  and  accord  to  his  memory  the  reverence  due  a 
genuine  apostle  of  Christ?  Or  who,  among  those  that 
followed  him  to  the  grave,  could  have  imagined  that 
Episcopal  Methodism,  organized  under  his  auspices  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  would,  at  the  dawn  of  the 
twentieth  century,  number  nearly  twice  as  many  com- 
municants as  the  thirteen  colonies  had  inhabitants  when 
they  declared  themselves  to  be  "of  right  free  and  inde- 
pendent" ? 

the  foundation  builder 

The  civilized  world  recognizes  John  Wesley,  an  alum- 
nus of  Oxford  University,  sometime  Fellow  of  Lincoln 
College,  and  a  presbyter  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  the 
founder  of  American  Methodism.  On  the  paternal  side, 
descended  from  a  line  of  scholars  and  clergymen,  and  of 
devout  and  intellectual  Christiaus  on  the  maternal,  both 
ancestral  traditions  and  personal  training  contributed  to 
his  religious  development  and  choice  of  the  ministry. 
His  brother  Charles  was  the  originator  of  the  movement 
at  Oxford  to  which  was  applied  the  then  opprobrious 
term  "Methodist,"  and  with  him  were  associated  a  num- 
3 


4     CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ber  of  students,  of  whom  the  most  famous  was  George 
Whitefield. 

John  Wesley's  was  the  strongest,  and  proved  to  be  the 
dominating,  personalitj-.  At  the  beginning  of  his  minis- 
try he  was  a  High  Churchman  and  as  ascetic  as  a  monk. 
Controlled  by  those  views,  and  almost  fanatical  in  the 
reduction  of  them  to  practice,  he  came  to  the  continent  of 
North  America  as  a  missionary  to  the  Indians  of  Georgia 
and  also  to  act  as  rector  of  the  Church  of  England  in 
Savannah.  There  the  sternness  of  his  rule,  together  with 
various  extravagances  of  speech  and  judgment,  so  em- 
barrassed his  work  that  he  returned  to  England,  reaching 
there  early  in  1738.  Having  met  on  his  voyages  and  while 
in  Georgia  certain  German  Christians,  Lutherans,  and 
especially  several  Moravians,  he  came  to  the  conclusion 
that  he  had  not  yet  understood  the  conditions  or  the 
nature  of  genuine  Christian  experience,  and  thereafter 
concentrated  his  intellectual  and  moral  powers  upon  its 
attainment. 

After  various  mental  and  spiritual  conflicts,  on  the 
evening  of  Wednesday,  May  24,  1738,  in  a  society  of 
earnest  Christians  in  London,  he  "felt  his  heart  strangely 
warmed,"  and  "an  assurance  was  given"  to  him  that 
Christ  had  taken  away  his  sins.  The  full  account  of  this 
transformation  belongs  to  the  universal  literature  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

Not  long  after  this  he  visited  the  Moravians  in  Ger- 
many, and  on  his  return  to  England  began  to  attend 
meetings  of  societies  similar  to  that  in  which  he  found 
peace,  speaking  therein  whenever  he  could  obtain  a  hear- 
ing. These  were  small  associations  organized  in  London 
and  vicinity,  to  promote  a  deeper  religious  life  than  was 
commonly  attained  or  sought  for,  and  were  composed 
chiefly  of  members  of  the  Church  of  England. 

Whitefield  had  already  begun  to  preach  in  the  open  air, 


JOHN  WESLEY  AND  WESLEYAN  METHODISM  5 


but  Wesley,  as  yet,  preached  only  in  the  churches  which 
invited  him;  and  though  he  was  seldom  admitted  for  a 
second  time,  some  hearers  eagerly  followed  him.  The 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury  cited  Charles  Wesley  to  Lam- 
beth, and  threatened  him  with  excoinmunicatioa  for 
preaching  in  the  open  air ;  but,  encouraged  by  Whitefield, 
both  he  and  his  brother  did  so  almost  incessantly.  As  the 
societies  increased  in  number  Wesley  prepared  a  plan  for 
those  who  were  ready  to  work,  involving  preaching  by 
each  one  every  evening,  sometimes  in  the  afternoon,  and 
at  least  three  times  each  Sunday. 

Wesley  being  an  Arminiau,  and  Whitefield  a  Calvinist 
of  rigid  type,  they  soon  separated  on  account  of  doctrinal 
differences.  As  Wesley's  organization  was  much  stronger 
than  that  of  Whitefield,  it  grew  faster  and  was  the  object 
of  greater  hostility.  Mobs  spontaneously  arose  against 
outdoor  preachers,  and  especially  against  Methodists,  and 
others  were  frequently  instigated  or  promoted  by  parish 
priests  and  civil  officers.  Charges  were  made  against  the 
Methodists  of  sympathy  with  the  Roman  Catholic  efforts 
to  restore  the  house  of  Stuart  to  the  English  throne; 
nevertheless,  the  movement  spread  rapidly,  and  within 
three  years  there  were  twenty-three  itinerant  preachers 
under  the  superintendence  of  Wesley,  besides  local 
preachers,  who  supported  themselves  and  held  meetings 
in  adjacent  towns  and  villages.  Several  clergymen  of 
the  Chm*ch  of  England  publicly  gave  him  their  counte- 
nance by  attending  his  services,  preaching  in  them,  con- 
tributing financially  to  their  support  and  inducing  others 
to  do  so,  and  also  defended  the  Wesleys  from  false 
accusations. 

John  Wesley  had  already  formed  the  class  meeting, 
which,  beginning  as  a  means  of  collecting  funds  for  the 
support  of  the  movement,  was  transformed,  by  the  visits 
of  the  leader  and  the  regular  meetings  of  the  members, 


C     CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

into  one  of  the  most  valuable  agencies  for  guarding  and 
training  young  converts  and  developing  local  and  itin- 
erant preachers. 

ORIGIN  OF  METHODIST  CONFERENCES 

As  an  aid  in  preserving  unity,  encouraging  those  who 
most  suffered  from  mobs  or  social  ostracism,  maintaining 
the  organization  of  the  societies,  and  systematically 
transferring  the  preachers  from  one  point  to  another, 
Wesley  wrote  letters  to  several  clergymen  and  to  his  lay 
assistants,  inviting  them  to  meet  in  London  and  give  him 
their  ''advice  respecting  the  best  method  of  carrying  on 
the  work  of  God."  In  this  way  originated  that  character- 
istic institution.  The  Conference. 

This  first  Methodist  Conference  was  held  on  Monday, 
June  25,  1744,  and  was  composed  of  John  and  Charles 
Wesley,  four  other  regular  clergymen  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  four  lay  preachers. 

After  adopting  resolutions  for  the  government  of  the 
Conference,  and  a  season  of  prayer,  the  members  took  up 
the  two  fundamental  questions:  first,  "What  to  teach"; 
second,  "What  to  do,"  or  "How  to  regulate  the  doctrine, 
discipline,  and  practice  of  the  ministry  and  the  society." 
Two  days  were  spent  in  discussing  the  theology  which 
must  be  the  basis  of  their  preaching,  and  three  days  were 
devoted  to  rules  of  discipline  and  methods  of  preaching. 
The  relations  of  the  Methodist  society  to  the  Church  of 
England  were  discussed.  Wesley  at  this  time  was  op- 
posed to  encouraging  a  lay  ministry.  The  Minutes  record 
that  "lay  assistants  are  allowable  only  in  cases  of 
necessity." 

The  twenty-second  of  these  Annual  Conferences  con- 
vened at  Manchester,  England,  August  30,  1765.  There 
were  then  25  circuits,  with  71  preachers  in  England,  4 
circuits,  with  as  many  preachers  in  Scotland,  2  with  a 


JOHN  WESLEY  AND  WESLEYAN  METHODISM 


preacher  for  each  in  Wales,  and  8  with  15  preachers  in 
Ireland,  and  about  20,000  members  in  all.  While  the 
Conference  discussed  with  freedom  every  question  and 
expressed  its  sentiments  by  votes,  the  final  decision  in 
every  case  was  with  John  Wesley ;  his  rule  was  absolute. 

Wesley's  defense  against  the  charge  of  usurpation 

At  the  close  of  the  Conference  in  1766  he  delivered  a 
remarkable  address,  describing  the  manner  in  which  the 
societies  and  Conferences  had  involved  him  in  his  re- 
sponsibilities, and  said: 

I  did  not  seek  any  part  of  this  power;  it  came  upon  me  un- 
awares; but  when  it  was  come,  not  daring  to  bury  that  talent, 
I  used  it  to  the  best  of  my  judgment.  Yet  I  never  was  fond  of 
it;  I  always  did,  and  do  now,  bear  it  as  my  burden,  the  burden 
which  God  lays  upon  me,  and  therefore  I  dare  not  yet  lay  it 
down.  But  if  you  can  tell  me  any  one,  or  any  five  men,  to  whom 
I  may  transfer  this  burden,  who  can  and  will  do  just  what  I 
do  now,  I  will  heartily  thank  both  them  and  you.  Preaching 
twice  or  thrice  a  day  is  no  burden  to  me  at  all;  but  the  care  of 
all  the  preachers  and  of  all  the  people  is  a  burden  indeed. 

It  should  never  be  overlooked  that  Wesley,  tliough  a 
clergyman  of  the  Church  of  England,  was  engaged  in 
forming  societies  and  not  a  Church;  he  instructed  those 
whom  he  baptized  to  be  confirmed  in  the  Church  of 
England,  but  did  not  require  members  of  other  com- 
munions who  affiliated  with  him  to  disconnect  themselves 
with  the  body  in  which  they  had  been  trained.  The  socie- 
ties were  of  his  creation ;  he  was  the  sole  arbiter,  rule- 
maker,  judge,  and  administrator.  Hence  his  government 
was  not  a  usurpation,  and  those  who  disliked  it  were 
under  no  moral  or  religious  obligation  to  remain  with 
him. 


CHAPTER  II 


Wesleyan  Methodism  in  America 

The  rear  173!)  is  universally  recognized  as  the  one  in 
which  the  general  Methodist  awakening  and  movement 
in  England  began;  and  it  flourished  there  twent\'-one 
years  before  a  single  Wesleyan  Methodist  appeared  in 
the  territory  now  included  in  the  United  States  of 
America. 

A  company  of  emigrants  from  Ireland  arrived  in  New 
York  on  August  10,  1760.  Among  them  were  several  fol- 
lowers of  John  Wesley.  One  of  these,  Philip  Embury,  a 
carpenter  by  trade,  with  an  unusual  degree  of  education 
for  one  in  his  position,  had  served  as  a  Wesleyan  local 
preacher.  Five  years  later  another  vessel  brought  over 
five  families,  most  of  whom  were  related  to  Embury; 
these  also  settled  in  New  York.  Nothing  concerning  any 
of  them  as  Methodists  is  known  prior  to  an  event  which, 
though  small  in  itself,  proved  to  be  critical. 

EMBURY  AND  BARBARA  HECK 

How  Mrs.  Barbara  Heck,  who  came  over  with  Embury, 
her  cousin,  surprised,  while  they  were  playing  cards,  some 
of  the  last  to  arrive;  how  she  threw  the  cards  into  the 
fire,  and  having  warned  the  players  of  their  danger  and 
duty,  went  to  the  house  of  Embury,  told  what  she  had 
seen  and  done  and  appealed  to  him  to  cry  aloud  and 
spare  not,  and  show  the  people  their  sins,  and  gaining 
his  consent,  collected  four  persons,  who  with  herself  made 
the  congregation,  is  many  times  more  than  a  twice-told 
tale;  but,  like  the  act  of  the  woman  who  broke  the  ala- 
baster box  of  precious  ointment,  it  will  be  told  round  the 
whole  world  while  Methodism  lasts. 

8 


i 


WESLEYAN  METHODISM  IN  AJVIERICA 


9 


After  the  sermon  Embury  enrolled  the  five  in  a  class. 
The  exact  date  of  this  first  Methodist  class  meeting  is  not 
know  n,  but  that  it  was  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year  17(iG 
is  certain.  The  congregation  soon  became  too  large  for 
the  house.  Embury  fully  understood  and  scrupulously 
followed  Wesley's  plan,  and  in  a  few  months  two  classes 
of  adherents  were  formed,  one  of  men  and  the  other  of 
women.  A  room  to  be  used  for  religious  services  was 
rented  near  the  British  army  quarters.  The  singing  was 
so  much  more  spirited  than  that  of  the  Established 
Church  that  three  musicians  attended  the  service  to  hear 
and  participate,  and  were  converted.  Embury  promptly 
licensed  them  as  exhorters. 

The  poor  furnished  the  majority  of  the  followers.  The 
superintendent  of  the  almshouse  invited  Embury  to 
preach  there,  many  paupers  were  converted,  and  the  su- 
perintendent hiiuself  yielded  to  powerful  appeals  which 
were  supported  by  the  conduct  and  testimony  of  the 
inmates. 

CAPTAIN  WEBB 

An  event  of  the  first  importance  to  the  infant  society 
was  the  appearance  at  one  of  the  meetings  early  in  1767, 
of  a  British  oflBcer  in  uniform.  The  Methodists  were 
somewhat  startled,  fearing  that  he  was  there  to  question 
them  about  the  conversion  of  the  musicians  and  others 
connected  with  the  army.  Taking  no  part  in  the  exer- 
cises, he,  nevertheless,  bore  himself  so  reverently  as  to 
show  that  he" was  not  hostile.  At  the  close  he  informed 
Embury  that  he  was  "Captain  Thomas  Webb,  of  the 
King's  Service,"  that  "he  was  also  a  soldier  of  the  cross," 
and  "a  spiritual  son  of  John  Wesley,"  and  that  he  had 
been  "authorized  by  John  Wesley  to  preach."  Three 
years  previously  he  had  heard  Wesley  and  become 
a  zealous  Christian;  he  joined  the  Methodist  Society, 


10    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


and  being  in  a  congregation  at  Bath  when  the  circuit 
preacher  failed  to  come,  advanced  to  the  altar  and  re- 
counted with  thrilling  effect  the  facts  of  his  personal 
experience.  Wesley  heard  of  it  and  licensed  him  as  a 
lay  preacher.  His  services  to  the  growing  society  and  to 
Methodism  were  not  surpassed,  except  by  those  of  Rankin 
and  Asbury,  by  any  Englishman  who  came  to  this  coun- 
try in  the  earliest  period. 

In  17G8  the  society  leased  the  site  in  John  Street,  New 
York  city,  purchasing  it  two  years  later.  There  was  no 
expectation  of  founding  a  I'eligious  denomination ;  in- 
deed, they  avowed  the  contrary.  Webb  retired  with  full 
pay  as  captain  and  settled  in  Jamaica,  Long  Island,  and 
there  started  a  Methodist  society.  On  his  first  visit  to  a 
town  he  usually  formed  a  class,  and  on  the  second  or 
third  organized  a  society.  He  planted  Methodism  in 
Trenton,  the  capital  of  New  Jersey;  in  Burlington,  and 
in  Philadelphia,  where  he  preached  in  a  "sail  loft"  and 
enrolled  a  class  of  seven  members.  He  introduced 
ilethodism  into  Delaware  and  continued  his  tour  to 
Baltimore. 

ROBERT  STRAWBRIDGE 

During  this  period  a  Methodist  movement  had  been 
spreading  in  ^laryland,  of  which  the  Methodists  in  New 
York  had  never  heard.  Robert  Strawbridge  and  other 
Irishmen  had  settled  in  Frederick  County,  then  a  back- 
woods country.  It  is  maintained  by  some  that  Straw- 
bridge  preached  the  tirst  sermon,  formed  the  first  society, 
and  built  the  first  preaching  house  for  Methodism  in 
Maryland  and  in  America  at  least  three  years  before 
Wesley  Chapel  in  John  Street  was  built.  Strong  testi- 
mony is  adduced  on  both  sides  of  this  question.  This 
controversy,  being  of  no  importance  to  the  purpose  of  this 
work,  is  merely  recognized  here.    Those  who  wish  to  see 


WESLEYAN  METHODISM  IN  AMERICA  11 


it  more  fully  discussed  may  do  so  in  the  author's  History 
of  Methodism  in  the  United  States,  published  in  two 
volumes  by  Harper  &  Brothers,  and  i)ublished  in  one  vol- 
ume by  Charles  Scribner's  Sons ;  in  Stevens's  Historj/  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  at  great  length  in 
The  Beginnings  of  the  Wcsleyan  Movement  in  America, 
by  John  Atkinson,  D.D.,  and  in  Lost  Chapters  Recovered 
from  the  Early  History  of  American  Methodism,  by 
J.  B.  Wakeley,  D.D. 

Strawbridge  built  the  "Log  Meeting  House"  on  Sams 
Creek,  Maryland,  and  the  society  there  established  soon 
contributed  four  preachers  to  Methodism.  He  also 
founded  the  first  Methodist  societies  in  the  Counties  of 
Baltimore  and  Harford,  Maryland,  and  Richard  Owens, 
the  "first  native  preacher''  of  the  continent,  was  one  of 
his  converts.  Substantial  citizens,  as  well  as  the  more 
emotional  part  of  the  community,  responded  to  his 
appeals. 

Whatever  view  may  be  taken  of  the  question  of  pri- 
ority, Barbara  Heck,  Philip  Embury,  Robert  Straw- 
bridge,  and  Captain  Webb  should  always  be  mentioned  in 
every  account,  however  brief,  of  the  origin  of  Methodism 
in  America. 

A  NEVER-TO-BE-FORGOTTEN  LAYMAN 

Thomas  Taylor,  a  layman,  arrived  in  this  country  Oc- 
tober 2G,  17G7,  and  made  the  acquaintance  of  Embury  and 
other  Methodists.  Six  months  later  he  wrote  to  Wesley 
a  more  important  communication  than  the  latter  had 
previously  received  from  America.  He  described  White- 
field's  three  visits,  and  the  reaction  which  followed,  and 
spoke  of  its  having  pleased  God  to  "rouse  up  Mr.  Embury 
to  employ  his  talent  [which  for  several  years  had  been 
hid,  as  it  were,  in  a  napkin]  by  calling  sinners  to  repent- 
ance, and  exhorting  believers  to  let  their  light  shine  be- 


12   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


fore  men."  Also  he  depicted  the  favorable  result  of  the 
presence  of  Webb,  detailed  plans  for  erecting  a  chapel, 
and  said :  "There  is  another  point  far  more  material,  in 
which  1  must  importune  your  assistance,  not  only  in  my 
own  name,  but  in  the  name  of  the  whole  society.  We 
need  an  able  and  experienced  preacher;  one  who  has 
both  gifts  and  grace  necessary  for  the  work."  He  com- 
mended the  preaching  of  Webb  and  Embury  as  useful, 
and  testified  that  their  hearts  were  in  the  work,  but 
added  that  "the  progress  of  the  gospel  here  depends  much 
upon  the  qualifications  of  preachers."^  He  implored 
Wesley  to  send  a  man  of  wisdom,  of  sound  faith,  and  a 
good  disciplinarian.    Thus  feelingly  he  implored  him: 

Dear  Sir:  I  entreat  you,  for  the  good  of  thousands,  to  use 
your  utmost  endeavors  to  send  one  over.  .  .  .  With  respect  to 
money  for  the  payment  of  the  preachers'  passage  over,  if  they 
could  not  procure  it,  we  would  sell  our  coats  and  shirts  to 
procure  it  for  them.  I  most  earnestly  beg  an  interest  in  your 
prayers,  and  trust  you,  and  many  of  our  brethren,  will  not 
forget  the  Church  in  this  wilderness. 

The  services  of  Taylor  to  American  Methodism  should 
never  be  forgotten ;  he  was  the  forerunner  of  a  long  line 
of  laymen,  wise,  spiritual,  self-sacrificing,  and  per.sever- 
ing.  Webb  and  Thomas  Bell  also  wrote.  Private  corre- 
spondence with  various  persons  had  circulated  the  news 
of  the  progress  of  Methodism.  Robert  Williams  applied 
to  Wesley  for  authority  to  go  over  and  preach.  This 
Wesley  granted,  on  the  express  stipulation  that  when 
the  "regularly  commissioned  missionaries"  to  be  sent  by 
Wesley  should  arrive,  he  would  labor  under  their  direc- 
tion. Ashton,  a  friend  of  Williams,  accompanied  him  on 
the  voyage  to  Norfolk,  Virginia. 

Wesley's  preachers  arrive  in  America 
In  the  twenty-sixth  English  Conference,  which  began 

•Bangs,  A  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  i,  pp.  52-58,  Letter 
of  Thomas  Taylor  to  John  Wesley. 


WESLEYAX  METHODISM  IN  AMERICA 


13 


at  Leeds  on  the  third  day  of  August,  1769,  Wesley  said: 
"We  have  a  pressing  call  from  our  brethren  at  New  York, 
who  have  built  a  preaching  house,  to  come  over  and  help 
them.  Who  is  willing  to  go?  Richard  Boardman  and 
Joseph  Pilmoor.  What  can  we  do  further  in  token  of  our 
brotherly  love?  Let  us  now  take  a  collection  among 
ourselves."  This  was  immediately  done,  and  out  of  it 
about  twenty  pounds  was  given  for  their  passage  and 
fifty  pounds  was  allotted  to  the  payment  of  the  debt 
incurred  in  the  building  of  the  preaching  house.  These 
evangelists,  differing  in  gifts  and  temperament,  were  able 
men,  especially  Pilmoor.  Full  of  their  mission,  they 
speedily  sailed  for  America,  disembarking  at  Gloucester 
on  the  Delaware  River,  a  few  miles  below  PhiladelfAia. 
In  the  Minutes  of  the  English  Conference  for  1770  the 
American  continent  was  mentioned  in  the  appointments 
for  the  first  time,  and  stood  thus :  "America :  Joseph  Pil- 
moor, Richard  Boardman,  Robert  Williams,  John  King." 
The  number  of  members  reported  in  1771  for  the  "great 
continent  of  North  America"  was  three  hundred  and  six- 
teen. On  the  ground  of  such  progress  Wesley  asked  for 
willing  missionaries  to  send  to  the  United  States,  and 
five  responded.  Only  two,  Francis  Asbury  and  Richard 
Wright,  could  be  spared.^ 

FRANCIS  ASBURY 

Asbury  was  bom  near  Birmingham,  England,  August 
20,  1745,  learned  the  trade  of  a  blacksmith,  was  re- 
ligiously impressed  and  instructed  by  his  parents,  chiefly 
his  mother,  came  under  the  influence  of  certain  clergy- 
men of  the  English  Church  who  sympathized  with  Wes- 
ley and  the  revival  of  pure  religion,  and  was  early  con- 
verted and  became  a  devout  Bible  student  and  an  indus- 
trious reader  of  all  good  and  useful  books.    Later  he 

'Wright's  career  in  this  country  was  comparatively  insignificant,  and  he  remained 
but  two  or  three  years. 


14    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


visited  a  Methodist  society,  and  in  1760  was  ready  to 
testify  to  an  experience  similar  to  the  strange  warming 
of  his  heart  which  Wesley  felt.  Before  his  seventeenth 
year  ended  he  was  made  a  class  leader;  at  the  age  of 
eighteen  he  was  authorized  to  act  as  local  preacher ;  when 
he  was  twenty-one  he  was  made  a  member  of  Wesley's 
Conference. 

The  administration  of  the  Discipline  by  Boardman 
and  Pilmoor  was  too  lax  to  suit  Asbury's  views,  the  en- 
forcement of  which  aroused  much  opposition  among  the 
members.  About  a  year  after  his  arrival,  a  letter  came 
from  Wesley  in  which  he  required  a  strict  attention  to 
discipline,  and  appointed  Asbury  to  act  as  Assistant. 
This  placed  him  in  charge  of  all  the  preachers,  including 
Boardman  and  Pilmoor.  But,  when  the  beneficial  influ- 
ence of  discipline  began  to  be  seen  and  felt,  many  who 
had  his  rigorous  methods  returned  rejected  to  confess 
their  errors  and  express  gratitude  for  his  fidelity. 

In  the  meantime  the  work  of  Strawbridge  had  widely 
extended  in  eastern  Maryland  (particularly  throughout 
his  own  county  of  Frederick),  Delaware,  Pennsylvania, 
and  Virginia.  Many  able  men  were  led  to  Christ  through 
his  preaching  and  that  of  Williams  and  King. 

The  historic  situation  presents  Asbury  as  the  vice- 
gerent of  Wesley,  superintending  preachers  and  confirm- 
ing preachers  and  people  in  the  Wesleyan  Discipline. 
In  the  meantime  Webb,  having  labored  about  six  years, 
had  returned  to  England  in  1772  to  obtain  more  mission- 
aries. His  enthusiastic  descriptions  of  the  condition  and 
prospects  of  the  American  people  led  Charles  Wesley  to 
regard  him  as  a  fanatic.  Webb  requested,  almost  de- 
manded, that  Christopher  Hopper  and  Joseph  Benson, 
two  of  the  foremost  men  in  the  Conference,  should  be 
sent  to  America,  which  convinced  Charles  Wesley  that 
"the  Captain  had  lost  his  head." 


WESLEYAN  METHODISM  IN  AMERICA 


li 


UANKIN,  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETIES 

When  the  English  Conference  met  in  August,  Webb 
was  permitted  to  address  the  preachers,  and  exhorted  with 
such  effect  that  George  Shadford,  highly  esteemed  by 
Wesley,  and  Thomas  Rankin,  one  of  the  chief  men  of  the 
Wesleyan  movement,  offered  themselves  to  go  in  the 
spring  of  1773.  At  once  Wesley  appointed  Rankin  Gen- 
eral Assistant,  or  "Superintendent  of  the  American  So- 
cieties." This  was  done  on  three  accounts:  Rankin  was 
Asbury's  senior  in  the  itinerancy;  he  had  had  wide  ex- 
l)erience  as  a  disciplinarian ;  and,  according  to  his  own 
correspondence  with  Wesley,  Asbury's  difficulties  had 
seriously  increased. 

Rankin  Avas  a  Scotchman,  thoroughly  instructed  in  the 
Catechism,  and  also — "although  his  father  was  a  very 
upright  man — in  music  and  dancing."  This  last  accom- 
plishment Rankin  declared  tended  "to  obliterate  the  good 
imi)ressions  that  from  time  to  time  had  affected  his 
mind."  At  the  death  of  his  father,  when  he  was  about 
seventeen  years  of  age,  he  became  profoundly  interested 
in  experimental  religion. 

John  Haine,  in  1745,  had  wrought  miracles  of  gi'ace  in 
the  British  army  in  Flanders,  and  the  converted  troops 
returning  to  England,  planted  Methodist  societies  wher- 
ever they  went.  One  of  these  was  established  in  Dunbar, 
Scotland,  and  there  Rankin  first  heard  Methodist  doc- 
trine; although  it  was  under  the  preaching  of  Whitefield 
that  he  was  converted.  He  also  heard  AVesley  and  Alex- 
ander Mather,  and  when  he  was  sent  to  America  had 
been  an  itinerant  minister  for  twelve  years,  wonderfully 
successful  in  preaching,  skillful  in  governing  the  socie- 
ties, and  even  more  unyielding  than  Asbury. 

Rankin  and  Shadford  reached  America  on  June  13, 
1773. 


CHAPTER  III 


American  Methodism  Organized 

Rankings  credentials  being  both  definite  and  compre- 
hensive, Asbury  received  him  with  due  respect,  and  en- 
deavored to  adapt  himself  to  a  subordinate  position 
where  he  had  been  the  hij^hest  local  and  visible  authority. 
This,  under  any  circumstances,  oye  of  the  hardest  tests  of 
faith  and  singleness  of  mind,  was  made  more  severe  by 
the  fact  that  Rankin  was  an  autocrat  and  endowed  with 
a  full  measure  of  Scotch  tenacity,  while  Asbury  was  an 
Englishman  of  a  time  when  firmness  in  the  whole  British 
nation  was  easily  intensified  into  obstinacy.  Wesley  had 
employed  Rankin  where  the  sternesf  discipline  was  re- 
quired, and  Asbury  had  aimed  to  imitate  Wesley  in  the 
control  and  regulation  of  Methodism  in  America. 

FIRST  AMERICAN  CONFERENCE 

The  first  A))ierican  Conference  was  held  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia,  beginning  on  July  14,  1773,  and  continuing 
in  session  three  days.  It  opened  with  nine  preachers,  but 
Asbury,  who  had  been  detained  on  the  New  York  Circuit, 
appeared  on  the  second  day,  thus  making  the  number 
correspond  to  that  at  Wesley's  first  Conference  in  Eng- 
land twenty-nine  years  before. 

All  in  attendance  were  natives  of  Europe;  they  were 
Thomas  Rankin,  Richard  Boardman,  Joseph  Pilmoor, 
Francis  Asbury,  Richard  Wright,  George  Shadford, 
Thomas  Webb,  John  King,  Abraham  Whitworth.  and 
Joseph  Yearbry.  The  aggregate  returns  of  membershi]) 
were  l.UJO,  of  whom  500  were  in  Maryland,  100  in  Vir- 
ginia, ISO  each  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  and  200 
in  New  Jersey.  These  were  enrolled  in  classes.  Prob- 
16 


AMERICAN  METHODISM  ORGANIZED 


17 


ably  as  many  more  considered  themselves  adherents,  for 
the  preachers  had  often  formed  societies  without  classes. 

This  Conference  unanimously  adopted  the  foundations 
of  organized  American  Methodism.  For  the  sake  of  clear- 
ness the  English  style  of  questions  and  answers  was 
adopted.    The  three  main  questions  were: 

Question  1.  Ought  not  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  that 
Conference,  to  extend  to  the  preachers  and  the  people  in  America 
as  well  as  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  2.  Ought  not  the  doctrine  and  Discipline  of  the 
Methodists,  as  contained  in  the  Minutes,  to  be  the  sole  rule  of 
our  conduct,  who  labor  in  the  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  in 
America? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  3.  If  so,  does  it  not  follow  that  if  any  preachers 
deviate  from  the  Minutes,  we  can  have  no  fellowship  with  them 
till  they  change  their  conduct? 

Answer.  Yes. 

The  following  rules  were  agreed  to  by  all  the  preachers 
present : 

1.  Every  preacher  who  acts  in  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley 
and  the  brethren  who  labor  in  America  is  strictly  to  avoid  ad- 
ministering the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

2.  All  the  people  among  whom  we  labor,  to  be  earnestly  ex- 
horted to  attend  the  church,  and  to  receive  the  ordinances  there; 
but  in  a  particular  manner  to  press  the  people  in  Maryland  and 
Virginia  to  the  observance  of  this  minute. 

3.  No  person  or  persons  to  be  admitted  into  our  love  feasts 
oftener  than  twice  or  thrice,  unless  they  become  members;  and 
none  to  be  admitted  to  the  society  meetings  more  than  thrice. 

4.  None  of  the  preachers  in  America  to  reprint  any  of  Mr. 
Wesley's  books  without  his  authority  (when  it  can  be  gotten) 
and  the  consent  of  their  brethren. 

5.  Robert  Williams  to  sell  the  books  he  has  already  printed, 
but  to  print  no  more,  unless  under  the  above  restrictions. 

6.  Every  preacher  who  acts  as  an  assistant  to  send  an  ac- 
count of  the  work  once  in  six  months  to  the  general  assistant. 


18   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

The  first  question  and  answer  determinately  expressed 
the  allegiance  of  preachers  and  people  to  Wesley;  the 
\.  second  determined  doctrinal  standards  and  practical 
rules  of  government,  and  the  third  made  adherence  to  the 
doctrines  and  discipline  and  obedience  to  Wesley  a  condi- 
tion of  membership. 

The  first  rule  is  explained  by  the  previous  European 
and  American  history  of  the  first  Quarterly  Conference 
of  which  any  account  has  been  preserved,  which  met  at 
the  house  of  a  member  on  the  western  shore  of  Maryland, 
December  23,  1772.  Ashitry's  Journal  (page  57)  relates 
that  the  fifth  proposition  considered  was  this:  "Will  the 
people  be  contented  without  our  administering  the  sac- 
raments?" J.  K,  (John  King)  was  neuter;  Brother  S. 
(Strawbridge)  "pleaded  for  the  ordinances,  and  so  did 
the  people,  who  appeared  to  be  much  biased  by  him." 

On  this  point  Wesley  had  required  his  followers  in 
England  to  submit  to  the  Established  Church  and  to  re- 
ceive the  Holy  Communion  from  the  parish  priests. 
Asbury  strove  to  preserve  in  this  country  similar  sub- 
mission, therefore  he  told  them  he  would  not  agree  to 
their  administering  the  ordinances  at  that  time  and 
records  that  he  insisted  on  "our  abiding  by  our  rules. 
But  Mr.  B.  [Boardman]  had  given  them  their  way  at  the 
quarterly  meeting  held  here  before  and  I  was  obliged  to 
connive  at  some  things  for  the  sake  of  peace  Reinforced 
in  the  Conference  by  Rankin,  this  first  note  was  passed ; 
and  such  was  the  influence  of  Asbury  that  the  second  was 
passed.  The  third  explains  itself ;  the  fifth  explains  the 
fourth ;  and  the  sixth  explains  itself. 

From  Ashunj's  Journal  we  learn  that  though  this  first 
rule  is  in  such  unequivocal  terms,  it  was  adopted  with 
the  understanding  that  "no  preacher  in  our  connection 
shall  be  permitted  to  administer  the  ordinances  at  this 

'  Asbury's  Journal,  p.  57. 


AMERICAN  METHODISM  ORGANIZED 


10 


time;  except  Mr.  S.  [Strawbridge]  and  he  under  the 
particular  direction  of  the  Assistant."^ 

Of  the  fourth  and  fifth  rules  Jesse  Lee,  the  first  his- 
torian of  American  Methodism,  says,  '"Robert  Williams 
.  .  .  had  reprinted  many  of  Mr.  Wesley's  books,  and 
had  spread  them  throughout  the  country."  But  notwith- 
standing much  good  had  been  done,  "it  now  became  neces- 
sary for  the  preachers  to  be  united  in  the  same  cause  of 
printing  and  selling  our  books,  so  that  the  profits  arising 
therefrom  might  be  divided  among  the  preachers  or  ap- 
plied to  some  charitable  purpose."^ 

Boardman  and  Pilmoor,  whose  names  do  not  appear  in 
the  list  of  appointments,  remained  in  the  country  nearly 
six  months  after  the  adjournment  of  the  Conference. 
Although  they  had  not  participated  in  the  political  con- 
troversies of  the  time,  being  loyal  Englishmen,  when  they 
perceived  that  war  was  ine%itable,  '"after  commending  the 
Americans  to  God,"  they  took  their  departure,  January  2, 
1774. 

Notwithstanding  the  rigor  of  Rankin's  administration, 
the  society  had  become  thoroughly  consolidated,  and  had 
largely  increased  in  membership,  about  a  thousand  being 
added  in  ten  months.  But  Rankin's  manners  were  so 
abrupt,  he  was  so  monarchical  in  spirit,  and  his  course 
was  frequently  so  destitute  of  tact,  that  Asbury  confessed 
himself  to  have  been  sorely  tried. 

At  the  second  Conference,  held  in  Philadelphia,  May 
25,  1774,  no  regulation  of  permanent  importance  was 
passed,  attention  being  concentrated  on  the  appoint- 
ments, the  working  of  the  machinery  of  the  society,  and 
financial  ways  and  means. 

SERIOUS  DISAGREEMENTS 

Asbury  writes  of  this  Conference:  "The  overbearing 

^  Asbury' s  Journal,  vol.  i.  p.  80. 
^History  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  48,  49. 


20    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


spirit  of  a  certain  person  had  excited  my  fears.  My 
judgment  was  stubbornly  opposed  for  a  while,  and  at  last 
submitted  to.''^ 

Contrary  to  Asbury's  wish,  Rankin  removed  him  from 
Baltimore  to  New  York,  "to  exchange  with  himself  at 
Philadelphia." 

It  is  evident  from  Ashury's  Journal  that  he  was  not  as 
submissive  to  the  authority  of  Rankin  as  he  had  required 
others  to  be  to  his  own.  He  records :  "It  is  somewhat 
grievous  that  he  [Rankin]  should  prevent  my  going  to 
lialtimore,  after  being  acciuaiuted  with  my  engagements, 
and  the  iini)()rtunities  of  my  friends  there."  He  also 
says :  "I  spoke  my  mind  to  Mr.  R.,  but  we  did  not  agree 
in  judgment.  And  it  appeared  to  me  that  to  make  any 
attempt  to  go  to  Baltimore  would  be  all  in  vain."^ 

Asbury  was  so  dissatisfied  that  he  wrote  to  Wesley 
concerning  this  matter,  but  his  fairness  of  spirit  was 
manifested  by  his  showing  his  letter  to  Rankin  before 
sending  it.  Wesley  addressed  a  letter,  March  1,  1775,  to 
all  the  preachers,  telling  them  that  they  were  never  in 
their  lives  in  so  critical  a  situation  as  then.  Some  of  his 
sentences  are  worthy  of  perpetuation :  "Do  all  you  can 
to  help  soften  all ;  but  beware  how  you  adopt  another's 
jar.  .  .  .  The  conduct  of  T.  Rankin  has  been  suitable 
to  the  Methodist  plan.  I  hope  all  of  you  tread  in  his 
steps." 

The  Conference  of  1775  took  no  action  modifying  the 
proceedings  of  its  predecessors. 

The  Conference  of  1776  assembled  in  Baltimore  on 
May  21.  Asbury  being  ill,  could  not  attend.  Among 
those  received  on  trial  was  Freeborn  Garrettson,  who  was 
to  become  one  of  the  noted  men  of  American  Methodism, 
and  an  authority  on  its  history  and  traditions.  The 


^Asbury's  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  112. 
2Ibid..  vol.  i,  p.  138. 


AMERICAN  METHODISM  ORGANIZEl!) 


21 


membership  had  increased  more  than  fifty  per  cent  during 
the  year.  This  large  advance  was  in  the  South;  New 
York,  Isew  Jersey,  Philadelphia,  overrun  by  soldiei's  and 
agitated  by  war  and  rumors  of  war,  showed  an  alarming 
decline,  and  Baltimore  made  but  a  slight  increase. 

THE  REVOLUTION AUy  WAR 

July  2G  was  appointed  as  a  fast  day  to  pray  for  the 
peace  of  America  and  the  prosperity  of  the  work  of  God. 
Before  that  day  came,  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
which  affected  every  law  and  civic  interest  of  the 
colonies,  and  was  destined  to  produce  immeasurable 
effects  ujKjn  Methodism,  had  been  submitted  to  the  judg- 
ment and  sympathy  of  the  world.  Notwithstanding  the 
troubled  condition  of  the  public  mind,  Methodism  so  de- 
voted its  energies,  chiefly  to  increase  and  consolidate, 
that  when  the  Conference  of  1777  convened  in  a  rural 
circuit  in  Maryland,  the  registry  showed  large  gains  in 
the  membership  and  preaching  staff. 

It  being  now  considered  certain  that  the  war  between 
England  and  the  colonies  would  not  cease  for  years,  most 
of  the  preachers  who  came  from  England  contemplated 
returning  if  opportunity  should  occur.  To  provide 
against  such  a  contingency  a  committee  of  five  was  ap- 
pointed by  the  Conference  to  act  in  the  place  of  the 
General  Assistant.  Such  a  superintendency  by  commit- 
tee had  been  proposed  at  a  preceding  informal  meeting  of 
leading  preachers,  including  Asbury,  In  Stevens's  His- 
tory of  the  Methodist  Episeopal  Church,  and  in  Lednum's 
Eistory  there  are  discrepancies  between  the  accounts  of 
the  appointment  of  this  committee,  but  it  is  plain  that  it 
was  appointed ;  and  that  the  unpopularity  of  the  English 
preachers — who  were  stigmatized  as  Tories — accounts 
for  the  absence  of  Asbury's  name  from  the  committee  of 
five. 


22    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Wesley's  unfortunate  interference 

The  unfortunate  interference  of  Wesley,  in  the  Ameri- 
can question  on  the  English  side,  had  made  it  almost 
impossible  for  Methodist  ministers,  natives  of  England, 
to  obtain  a  favorable  hearing;  and  in  various  sections 
they  were  subject  to  insults,  personal  assaults,  and  arrest. 

There  being  but  few  ministei-s  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land to  administer  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
question  was  raised,  in  this  Conference,  whether  it  would 
not  be  permissible  and  wise  for  the  preachers  to  do  so. 
Lee  observes:  "We  were  only  a  religious  society,  and  not 
a  Church,  and  any  member  of  any  Church,  who  would 
conform  to  our  rules,  and  meet  in  a  class  had  liberty  to 
continue  in  their  own  Church."^ 

While  a  majority  of  the  preachers  and  many  of  the 
members  considered  themselves  members  of  the  Church 
of  England,  documents  and  authentic  traditions  show 
that  by  birth,  training,  and  associations  many  of  the 
early  American  Methodists  were  Baptists  and  Presby- 
terians. There  were  also  not  a  few  birthright  members 
of  the  Society  of  Friends. 

Though  the  official  Minutes  make  no  reference  to  the 
question  of  sacraments,  the  Journal  of  Philip  Gatch 
records  that  the  question,  "What  shall  be  done  with  re- 
spect to  the  ordinances?"  was  propounded,  and  the 
answer  was,  "Let  the  preachers  pursue  the  old  plan,  as 
from  the  beginning."  There  being  dissent,  another  ques- 
tion was  raised :  "What  alteration  may  we  make  in  our 
original  plan?"  And  the  answer  was,  "Our  next  Con- 
ference will,  if  God  permit,  show  us  more  clearly." 

All  the  English  preachers,  except  Asbury,  asked  for 
certificates  of  ministerial  character,  that  they  might 
return  home  honorably. 


'^History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  47. 


AMERICAN  METHODISM  ORGANIZED 


23 


1778 

The  Conference  of  1778  was  held  at  Leesburg,  Vir- 
ginia. The  province  of  Virginia  then  contained  nearly 
two  thirds  of  the  members  of  the  Methodists  in  the 
colonies.  Because  of  current  report  that  Methodists 
sympathized  with  Great  Britain — which  grew  largely  out 
of  the  writings  of  Wesley,  and  also  in  part  from  the  re- 
treat of  the  English  ministers — Asbury,  unjustly  sus- 
pected of  Toryism,  was  in  concealment  at  the  house  of 
Judge  White.   Asbury  says  in  his  Journal:^ 

The  reason  of  this  retirement  was  as  follows:  From  March 
10,  1778,  on  conscientious  principles  I  was  a  non-juror,  and 
could  not  preach  in  the  State  of  Maryland;  and  therefore  with- 
drew to  the  Delaware  State,  where  the  clergy  were  not  required 
to  take  the  State  oath;  though,  with  a  clear  conscience,  I  could 
have  taken  the  oath  of  the  Delaware  State,  had  it  been  required; 
and  would  have  done  it,  had  I  not  been  prevented  by  a  tender 
fear  of  hurting  the  scrupulous  consciences  of  others. 

Philadelphia  and  New  York  were  occupied  by  the 
British,  and  the  English  fleet  had  taken  possession  of 
the  waters  of  Maryland.  William  Watters,  the  senior 
native  itinerant,  presided.  All  the  ministers  were  young; 
^^'atters  himself  was  in  his  twenty-seventh  year. 

Of  the  fourteen  admitted  on  trial  several  were  destined 
to  become  extraordinarily  useful.  Among  these  was  John 
Dickins,  whose  subsequent  career  alone,  though  brief, 
would  have  made  the  Conference  famous.  For  the  first 
time  a  decline  was  shown  in  members;  it  amounted  to 
eight  hundred  and  seventy-three.  As  Asbury  was  not 
present,  and  no  word  was  received  from  him,  and  no  ap- 
pointment could  be  filled  by  him,  his  name  does  not 
appear  in  the  Minutes. 

After  debate  the  question  of  the  sacraments,  referred  to 
this  Conference  by  the  preceding  one,  was  again  post- 
poned to  the  next  Conference  for  definite  settlement. 

•Vol.  i,  p.  272. 


CHAPTER  IV 


The  First  Ecclesiastical  Conflict 

More  serious  troubles  than  any  which  had  yet  invaded 
the  societies  were  now  Ijnocking  loudly  at  the  door. 
The  continued  seclusion  of  Asbury  led  to  the  appoint- 
ment of  two  Conferences  in  177JJ.  One  was  at  the  house 
of  Judge  White,  Kent  County,  Delaware,  on  the  28th 
of  April,  and  was  attended  by  the  preachers  east  of  the 
Potomac ;  the  second  at  Fluvanna,  Virginia,  three  weeks 
later,  attended  by  those  west  of  the  Potomac.  The 
Minutes  contain  separate  records,  but  practically  they 
were  one  Conference. 

Asbury  had  never  presided  in  any  Conference  recorded 
in  the  Minutes  previous  to  the  one  at  the  residence  of 
Judge  White;  but  at  that  meeting,  it  was  voted  and 
declared  that  Asbury  should  "act  as  General  Assistant 
in  America."  "Helpers"  were  forbidden  to  alter  the 
boundaries  of  any  circuit,  or  to  appoint  preaching  in  any 
new  place  without  consulting  the  Assistant.  Every  ex- 
horter  and  local  preacher  was  re(]uired  to  obey  the  direc- 
tions of  the  Assistant,  "going  where  and  only  where"  he 
should  appoint.  The  terra  for  members  on  trial  was 
lengthened  from  one  year  to  two.  Traveling  preachers 
were  instructed  to  meet  the  class  whenever  possible. 
The  preachers  "determined  to  guard  against  a  separation 
from  the  Church  directly  or  indirectly." 

A  SIGNIFICANT  RESOLUTION 

The  most  significant  resolution  was  this:  "On  hear- 
ing every  preacher  for  and  against  what  is  in  debate,  tJie 
right  of  determination  shall  rest  with  him  [Asbury], 
according  to  the  Minutes."    This  revealed  the  fact  that 
24 


THE  FIRST  ECCLESIASTICAL  CONFLICT 


Asbury  desired  to  have  the  same  power  in  the  American 
Methodist  societies  and  Conferences  which  Wesley 
wielded  over  and  in  the  British  society  and  Conference. 
It  also  showed  that  the  preachers  conceded  it.  He  was 
to  hear  debate  solely  to  enable  him  to  form  his  imperial 
will,  and  though  the  form  of  voting  took  place,  and  the 
General  Assistant  usually  acquiesced,  the  power  of  decid- 
ing even  against  a  unanimous  vote  was  recognized  and 
recorded  as  fundamental  law.  These  were  the  principal 
acts  of  this  Conference,  and  weighty  transactions  they 
were,  especially  as  no  one  had  any  legal  right  to  call  that 
Conference. 

SELF-ORDAINED  PREACHERS 

Without  the  manuscripts  of  some  who  attended  the 
Fluvanna  Conference,  we  should  be  in  ignorance  of  a 
transaction  of  extraordinary  importance.  This  Confer- 
ence, having  had  the  sacramental  question  referred  to 
it  by  the  preceding  regular  Ccmference,  took  uj)  the 
matter  and  appointed  a  committee  consisting  of  Gatch, 
Foster,  Cole,  and  Ellis,  and  constituted  it  a  presbytery, 
"first,  to  administer  the  ordinances  to  themselves ;  sec- 
ond, to  authorize  any  other  preacher  or  preachers, 
approved  by  them,  by  the  form  of  laying  on  of  hands." 
They  did  this  on  the  ground  that  "the  E pi.'^copal  csfah- 
lishment  is  noia  dissolved  in  this  country;  and  therefore, 
in  almost  all  our  circuits  the  memhcrs  are  without  ordi- 
nances." 

Considerable  discussion  arose  as  to  whether  the  Con- 
ference held  in  Kent  County  or  that  which  met  at 
Fluvanna  was  the  regular  Conference.  That  the  latter 
was  the  only  legitimate  one  is  manifest. 

The  following  entry  is  in  the  Minutes  of  the  Kent,  or 
Delaware,  Conference. 

1.    Why  was  the  Delaware  Conference  held? 

Answer.  For  the  convenience  of  the  preachers  in  the  Northern 


26    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

stations,  that  we  all  might  have  an  opportunity  of  meeting  in 
Conference;  it  being  unadvisable  for  Brother  Asbury  and 
Brother  Ruff,  with  some  others,  to  attend  in  Virginia;  it  is  con- 
sidered also  as  preparatory  to  the  Conference  in  Virginia.  Our 
sentiments  to  be  given  in  [to  the  Virginia  Conference]  by 
Brother  Watters. 

Basing  his  reason  on  this  action,  Stevens  thus  con- 
cludes, Asbury  had  "no  previous  official  authority  to 
call  that  Conference,  nor  could  his  new  appointment  be 
considered  legal  until  the  majority  of  his  brethren,  who 
were  within  the  Fluvanna  Conference,  should  confirm  it. 
Not  till  five  years  later  did  Asbury  receive  any  such 
appointment  from  Wesley."^  In  harmony  with  these 
facts,  Lee,  in  his  History  of  the  Methodists,  numbers  the 
Fluvanna  Conference  as  the  "seventh  regular  Conference," 
merely  alluding  to  that  called  by  Asbury  as  "prepara- 
tory." 

The  Fluvanna  session,  being  the  "regularly  appointed" 
Conference,  organized  under  the  authoritatively  ap- 
pointed Committee  of  Superintendence,  presided  over  by 
one  of  these,  and  "composed  of  'the  majority  of  the 
preachers  from  a  majority  of  the  circuits  and  compris- 
ing a  majority  of  the  members,"  was  the  legal  and  right- 
ful session  of  the  body.  And  being  so,  it  adjourned  to 
meet  at  Manakintown,  Virginia,  May  8,  1780. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  Fluvanna  Conference  the 
majority  of  the  preachers  in  the  South  proceeded  to 
administer  the  sacraments  wherever  the  people  were 
willing  to  accept  them.  There  was,  however,  a  division 
of  sentiment  even  in  the  South,  for  some  of  those  who 
had  been  Methodists  from  the  beginning  and  had  been 
trained  to  regard  themselves  as  members  of  the  Church 
of  England,  would  not  commune  with  them.  Yet  both 
parties  feared,  and  shrank  from,  a  final  separation. 


>Stevcns's  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  ii,  p.  63. 


THE  FIRST  ECCLESIASTICAL  CONFLICT 


27 


ASBURY's  BALTIMORE  CONFERENCE 

Notwithstanding  efforts  made  during  the  whole  of  the 
preceding  year  to  prevent  it,  the  regular  Conference  met 
according  to  adjournment,  although  no  mention  is  made 
of  it  in  Minutes  of  the  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  Asburv,  however,  having  been  desig- 
nated at  the  preparatory  irregular  meeting  of  a  minority 
of  the  preachers  to  the  office  of  General  Assistant,  called 
a  Conference  of  "the  more  Northern  preachers"  to  meet 
in  Baltimore  on  April  24,  which  was  two  weeks  before 
the  regular  Conference  was  to  convene  at  Manakintown. 

The  Conference  appointed  by  Asbury  took  the  follow- 
ing action : 

Question  12.    Shall  we  continue  in  close  connection  with  the 
Church,  and  press  our  people  to  a  closer  communion  with  her? 
Answer.  Yes. 

Question  IS.  Will  this  Conference  grant  the  privilege  to  all 
the  friendly  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England,  at  the  request  or 
desire  of  the  people,  to  preach  or  administer  the  ordinances  in 
our  preaching  houses  or  chapels? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  20.    Does  this  whole  Conference  disapprove  the  Btep 
our  brethren  have  taken  in  Virginia? 
Answer.  Yes. 

Question  21.    Do  we  look  upon  them  no  longer  as  Methodists 
In  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  us  till  they  come  back? 
Answer.  Agreed. 

Question  22.  Shall  Brothers  Asbury,  Garrettson,  and  Watters 
attend  the  Virginia  Conference,  and  inform  them  of  our  pro- 
ceedings in  this,  and  receive  their  answer? 

Answer.  Yes. 

Question  26.  What  must  be  the  conditions  of  our  union  with 
our  Virginia  brethren? 

Answer.  To  suspend  all  their  administrations  for  one  year, 
and  all  meet  together  in  Baltimore. 

CONDITIONS  OF  UNION 

According  to  Ashiiry's  Journal,  the  Conference  in 


28    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Baltimore  at  first  concluded  to  renounce  the  Southern 
brethren.  Then  he  offered  conditions  of  union ;  that 
they  should  ordain  no  more,  that  they  should  come  no 
farther  than  Hanover  Circuit,  that  the  Conference  which 
he  represented  should  have  delegates  in  their  Confer- 
ence; that  they  should  "not  presume  to  administer  the 
ordinances  where  there  is  a  decent  Episcopal  minister," 
and  that  without  delay  they  should  make  preparations 
for  a  union  Conference. 

He  records  that  "although  it  was  like  death  to  think 
of  parting,"  after  a  long  debate  they  came  back  to  their 
original  determination.  "At  last,"  he  testifies,  "a  thought 
struck  my  mind;  to  propose  a  suspension  of  the  ordi- 
nances for  one  year,  and  so  cancel  our  grievances  and  be 
one."  It  was  agreed  on  both  sides,  and  Philip  Gatch  and 
Reuben  Ellis,  who  had  been  unyielding,  came  into  it 
and  thought  "it  would  do." 

The  account  in  Ashitn/s  Joiinial  of  his  journey  to  the 
Conference  held  at  Manakintown  indicates  deep  grief. 
Everywhere  he  went  "the  people  were  full  of  the  ordi- 
nances." On  reaching  the  place  he  writes:  "I  spoke  with 
my  countryman,  John  Dickins,  and  found  him  opposed 
to  our  continuance  in  union  with  the  Episcoj)al  Church. 
William  Walters  and  Freeborn  Garrettson  were  convers- 
ing with  the  different  members,  but  found  them  inflex- 
ible." Finally,  Asbury,  Garrettson,  Watters,  and  Drom- 
goole  were  invited  into  the  Conference.  Asbury  read 
Wesley's  "Thoughts  against  Separation,"  showed  his 
private  letters  of  instruction  fioni  Wesley,  set  before 
them  the  sentiments  of  the  Delaware  and  Baltimore 
Conferences,  read  some  correspondence  with  Gatch  and 
Dickins,  and  then  withdrew.  The  Conference  at  first 
refused  to  accept  Asbury's  proposition  to  suspend  for 
(me  year  the  operation  of  the  measures  they  had  taken. 

These  men  were  all  in  earnest  and  thoroughly  sin- 


THE  FIRST  ECCLESIASTICAL  CONFLICT 


29 


cere.  ''The  ambassadors  on  each,  side,''  says  Asbury, 
"wept  like  children,  but  kept  their  opinions."  Asbury 
returned  to  take  formal  and  final  leave  of  the  Conference 
and  depart  immediately  to  the  North,  but  found  that 
while  he  had  been  praying  "they  were  brought  to  an 
agreement." 

He  thus  sums  up  the  matter :  "Surely  the  hand  of  God 
has  been  greatly  seen  in  all  this."  "There  might  have 
been  twenty  promising  preachers  and  three  thousand 
people  seriously  aflected  by  this  separation."  In  view 
of  this  reconciliation  the  stations  of  the  preachers  in 
Virginia  were  included  in  the  Minutes  of  the  year  17S0; 
but  they  are  placed  after  all  the  other  proceedings.  Stevens 
notes  that  the  names  of  several  men  of  marked  influence 
disappeared  from  the  record. 

UNFORTUNATE  OMISSION 

The  Minutes  of  the  Conference  at  Mauakintown  are 
not  known  to  exist.  Because  of  the  partial  union  pre- 
viously described  the  official  Minutes  of  the  Church  give 
all  the  proceedings  of  Asbury's  Conference,  and  at  the 
close,  in  a  separate  question,  state  where  the  preachers 
in  A'irginia,  who  attended  the  regularly  adjourned  Con- 
ference, were  stationed. 

Stevens  justly  stigmatizes  the  omission  or  suppression 
of  the  Mauakintown  Minutes  as  a  grave  defect  in  the 
official  records  of  the  denomination.  Tigert  also  con- 
siders this  "an  essential  injustice,"  though  he  thinks 
that  other  sources,  principally  Ashurifs  Journal  and 
the  Life  of  Watters,  "have  afforded  information  concern- 
ing everything  of  value." 

This  view  is  not  supported  by  the  situation.  The 
discussions  that  lasted  for  parts  of  several  days,  in  the 
absence  of  Watters  and  Asbury,  and  the  various  motions 
made,  discussed,  adopted,  amended,  or  rejected,  might 


30   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


have  shed  much  light  upon  the  early  history  of  Method- 
ism, as  well  as  upon  its  principles. 

According  to  Wutters  the  proposition  accepted  was 
"that  there  should  be  a  suspension  of  the  ordinances  for 
the  present  year,  and  that  our  circumstances  should  be 
laid  before  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  advice  solicited;  also 
that  Mr.  Asbury  should  be  requested  to  ride  through 
the  different  circuits  and  superintend  the  work  at  large." 
This  came  from  one  of  those  who  had  favored  the  ordi- 
nances. Two  letters  appear  to  have  been  written  to 
Wesley,  asking  his  advice:  one  drawn  up  by  Dickins 
for  those  who  had  administered  the  ordinances,  spoken 
of  by  Garrettson  as  "a  circumstantial  letter,"  the  other 
by  Asbury,  who  in  his  Journal  for  the  16th  of  September, 
1780,  says,  "Wrote  to  Mr.  Wesley  at  the  desire  of  the 
Virginia  Conference,  who  had  consented  to  suspend  the 
administration  of  the  ordinances  for  one  year." 

A  preparatory  Conference  was  held  by  Asbury  on  April 
16,  1781,  at  Judge  White's,  at  Choptank,  in  Delaware. 
It  consisted  of  about  twenty  preachers.  Lee  speaks  of 
this  somewhat  satirically :  "But  previous  to  this  [the 
regular  Conference]  a  few  preachers  on  the  Eastern 
Shore  held  a  little  confcirnce  [the  italics  are  his]  to 
make  some  arrangements  for  those  pi'eachers  who  could 
not  go  with  them,  and  then  adjourned,  as  they  called  it, 
to  Baltimore." 

THE  CONFERENCE  OF  1781 

The  "ninth  regular  Conference"  met  at  Baltimore 
April  24.  Garrettson  states  that  a  response  from  Wesley 
to  Asbury's  letter,  and  to  Dickins's  circumstantial 
account  of  the  case  was  received  and  read.  Garrettson 
records  that  the  reply  was  "we  should  continue  on  the 
old  plan  until  further  direction."  He  adds,  "We  unani- 
mously agreed  to  follow  his  counsel,  and  went  on  har- 
moniously." 


THE  FIRST  ECCLESIASTICAL  CONFLICT  31 


Of  thirty-nine  preachei'S,  all  but  oue  responded  aflfirraa- 
tively  to  the  following  question  : 

What  preachers  are  now  determined,  after  mature  considera- 
tion, close  observation,  and  earnest  prayer,  to  preach  the  old 
Methodist  doctrine,  and  strictly  enforce  the  Discipline,  as  con- 
tained in  the  Notes,  Sermons,  and  Minutes  published  by  Mr. 
Wesley,  so  far  as  they  respect  both  preachers  and  people,  ac- 
cording to  the  knowledge  we  have  of  them,  and  the  ability  God 
shall  give,  and  firmly  resolved  to  discountenance  a  separation 
among  either  preachers  or  people? 

ESTIMATE  OF  THE  SACRAMENTAL  CONTROVERSY 

The  more  closely  this  situation  is  studied  the  move 
clearly  it  appears  that  those  brethren  are  entitled  to  an 
exalted  place  in  the  pantheon  of  Methodist  history  who 
"concluded  that  if  God  had  called  them  to  preach,  he 
had  called  them  also  to  administer  the  ordinances  of 
baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper."  That  this  conclusion 
is  sufficiently  supported  appears  from  the  account  given 
of  these  brethren  by  Lee,  who  was  conversant  with  all 
the  circumstances.   He  says : 

Most  of  our  preachers  in  the  South  fell  in  with  this  new 
plan,  and  as  the  leaders  of  the  party  were  very  zealous,  and  the 
greater  part  of  them  very  pious  men,  the  private  members  were 
influenced  by  them,  and  pretty  generally  fell  in  with  their 
measures.  .  .  .  The  preachers  in  the  South  were  very  successful 
in  their  ministerial  labors,  and  many  souls  were  brought  to  God 
in  the  latter  part  of  that  year;  and  the  Christians  were  very 
lively  in  religion.  These  things  all  united  to  confinn  the 
preachers  in  the  belief  that  the  step  they  had  taken  was  owned 
and  honored  of  God.  And  at  that  time  there  was  little  room  to 
hope  that  they  would  ever  recede  from  their  new  plan,  in  which 
they  were  so  well  established.  But,  after  all,  they  consented  for 
the  sake  of  peace,  and  the  union  of  the  body  of  Methodists,  to 
drop  the  ordinances  for  a  season  till  Mr.  Wesley  could  be  con- 
sulted' 

Lee  was  a  native  of  the  South,  in  sympathy  with  its 

^History  of  the  Methodists.  Jesse  Lee.  pp.  69  and  70. 


32   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


spirit  and,  though  not  involved  in  the  transaction,  it 
might  be  thought  that  he  looked  too  favorably  upon  those 
who  had  originated  ordination  and  administered  the  ordi- 
nances. But  the  three  delegates  sent  by  the  Northern 
preachers  to  the  Virginia  Conference  "to  bring  them 
back  if  possible  to  our  original  usages"  were  Asbury, 
Watters,  and  Garrettson."  Watters  and  Garrettson 
concurred  with  Lee,  and  Garrettson  commended  them 
in  an  exalted  strain,  taking  occasion  to  do  so  in  his  Semi- 
centennial Sermon : 

I  do  not  think  that  Drew  in  his  Life  of  Coke,  has  in  several 
particulars,  done  justice  to  our  American  brethren.  He  repre- 
sents them  as  very  refractory,  and  supposes  that  Asbury  had 
much  trouble  with  them;  whereas  they  went  forth  in  the  power 
of  the  Spirit,  disseminating  divine  truth,  and  suffering  much 
persecution  and  many  privations,  while  Asbury  had  a  quiet 
retreat  at  Judge  White's;  and  that  during  the  hottest  time  of 
our  conflict.  It  is  true,  our  Southern  brethren,  to  satisfy  th6 
people  and  their  own  consciences,  did  administer  the  ordinances 
in  what  they  thought  an  extreme  case.  The  leading  members 
of  the  Fluvanna  Conference  were  Dickins,  Gatch,  Yeargain, 
Poythress,  Ellis,  Tatum,  etc. — all  faithful,  pious,  zealous  men  of 
God,  who  would  have  done  credit  to  any  religious  connection. 
I  admired  their  goodness  in  cordially  agreeing  to  consult 
Wesley,  and  to  follow  his  judgment,  and  till  they  should  re- 
ceive his  advice,  to  suspend  the  administration  of  the  ordi- 
nances. If  I  am  prolix  on  this  subject,  it  is  to  show  that  our 
Virginia  brethren  were  undeservedly  accused  of  schism. 

If  the  course  of  Asbury,  in  counter-working  the  efforts 
of  the  majority  of  the  preachers  to  secure  the  sacraments 
for  themselves  and  the  people  was  in  several  particulars 
arbitrary,  the  unsettled  condition  of  the  times^  both  in 
Church  and  State,  palliates  it.  The  branches  of  visible 
Methodism  in  this  country  had  been  broken  from  the 
parent  stem,  Wesley,  except  as  Asbury,  with  or  without 
authority,  held  fast  to  it.  Nor  should  it  be  forgotten 
that  he  alone  of  all  the  preachers  sent  out  by  Wesley 


THE  FIRST  ECCLESIASTICAL  CONFLICT 


33 


remained  in  America.  And,  though  from  the  beginning 
of  the  controversy  he  had  been  dictatorial  and  severe, 
it  was  he  who  made  tlie  i)roj)osal  which  enabled  the  sac- 
rameutarians  to  yield  at  last  without  a  deeper  humili- 
ation than  hunmu  nature,  when  conscious  of  no  wrong, 
could  reasonably  be  expected  to  bear. 

AGITATED  STATE  OF  THE  COUNTRY 

•  Throughout  the  remainder  of  the  year  1781  and  early 
in  the  following  year,  the  ravages  and  distracticms  of 
civil  war  were  grievously  felt  by  the  Methodists.  Lee, 
who  experienced  them  heavily  in  his  own  person,  gives 
a  graphic  account  of  the  exigencies  in  which  they  were 
placed.  Many  members  were  drafted,  and  joined  the 
army  to  fight  for  their  country.  "Some  w^ere  killed,  "some 
made  shipwreck  of  the  faith,  and  but  few  returned  home 
with  as  much  religion  as  they  formerly  possessed." 
Some  of  the  Methodists  "were  bound  in  conscience  not  to 
'  fight ;  and  no  threatening  could  compel  them  to  bear 
arms,  or  hire  men  to  take  their  places."  In  consequence 
of  this  "some  were  whipped,  some  fined,  and  some  im- 
prisoned; others  were  sent  home,  and  many  were  much 
persecuted." 

In  Virginia  numerous  battles  were  fought,  which  kept 
the  people  agitated,  and  prevented  them  from  meeting  at 
their  usual  times  and  places.  When  they  did  meet  for 
worship  their  conversation  chiefly  concerned  the  troub- 
lous times.  The  pathetic  testimony  of  one  who  went 
through  it  all,  better  than  many  pages  of  fine  writing, 
enables  6ne  to  realize  what  the  situation  was  before  there 
were  trains,  telegraphs,  steamboats,  or  even  regular 
mails:  "Before  meeting  would  begin,  and  as  soon  as  it 
was  closed,  the  inquiry  was,  'What  is  the  news  of  the 
day?'  One  would  say,  'My  son  is  killed';  another,  'My 
husband  is  wounded  or  taken  a  prisoner,  or  sick  and 


34    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


likely  to  die.' "  Nevertheless,  there  was  an  increase  of 
twelve  hundred  and  forty-six,  and  a  gain  of  five  preachers. 

It  was  soon  found  necessary  to  have  two  Conferences 
per  year,  and  a  singular  rule  was  made.  As  the  Confer- 
ence in  the  North  was  of  longer  standing,  and  its  preach- 
ers the  older,  in  making  rules  for  the  societies,  it  was 
given  a  veto  upon  the  proceedings  of  the  Southern.  Lee 
reports  it  as  working  in  practice  thus : 

When  anything  was  agreed  to  in  the  Virginia  Conference,  and 
afterward  disapproved  of  in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  it  was 
dropped.  But  if  any  rule  was  fixed  and  determined  on  at  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  the  preachers  in  the  South  were  under 
the  necessity  of  abiding  by  it.^ 

1782 

The  Conference  held  two  sessions  in  1782,  one  at  Ellis 
Chapel,  Sussex  County,  Virginia,  April  27,  and  "ad- 
journed to  Baltimore  May  21."  Jarratt,  a  Church  of 
England  clergyman,  friendly  to  Asbury,  preached  every 
day  at  the  session  in  Virginia  and  adrninistered  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  preachers  and  people. 

The  session  in  Baltimore  unanimously  recognized 
Asbury  as  "General  Assistant"  "according  to  Wesley's 
original  appointment,"  which  was  before  Rankin  arrived. 
The  use  made  of  that  appointment,  without  the  ratifica- 
tion of  Wesley,  is  quaint,  but  it  had  the  force  of  a  recom- 
mendation by  Wesley. 

178.3 

Two  Conferences  were  held  in  178.3  at  the  same  places 
as  in  the  preceding  year,  and  in  the  same  order  of  succes- 
sion. No  action  having  an  important  bearing  upon  the 
constitutional  or  legal  development  of  the  society  was 
transacted.  In  the  latter  i)art  of  the  year  a  letter  of 
much  importance  was  received  from  Wesley: 

iHisloru  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  78,  79. 


THE  FIRST  ECCLESIASTICAL  CONFLICT 


35 


Bristol,  October  3,  1783. 

1.  Let  all  of  you  be  determined  to  abide  by  the  Methodist 
doctrine,  and  discipline,  published  in  the  four  volumes  of  Ser- 
mons, and  the  Notes  upon  the  New  Testament,  together  with 
the  large  minutes  of  the  Conference. 

2.  Beware  of  preachers  coming  from  Great  Britain  or  Ireland, 
without  a  full  recommendation  from  me.  Three  of  our  traveling 
preachers  here  eagerly  desired  to  go  to  America,  but  I  could 
not  approve  of  it  by  any  means;  because  I  am  not  satisfied  that 
they  thoroughly  like  either  our  discipline  or  doctrine:  I  think 
they  differ  from  our  judgment,  in  one  or  both.  Therefore,  if 
these  or  any  others  come  without  my  recommendation,  take 
care  how  you  receive  them. 

3.  Neither  should  you  receive  any  preachers,  however  recom- 
mended, who  will  not  be  subject  to  the  American  Conference, 
and  cheerfully  conform  to  the  Minutes  both  of  the  English  and 
American  Conferences. 

4.  I  do  not  wish  our  American  brethren  to  receive  any  who 
make  any  difllculty  of  receiving  Francis  Asiury  as  the  General 
Assistant. 

Undoubtedly  the  greatest  danger  to  the  work  of  God  in 
America,  is  likely  to  arise  either  from  preachers  coming  from 
Europe,  or  from  such  as  will  arise  from  among  yourselves, 
speaking  perverse  things,  or  bringing  in  among  you  new  doc- 
trines, particularly  Calvinism.  You  should  guard  against  this 
with  all  possible  care,  for  it  is  far  easier  to  keep  them  out  than 
to  thrust  them  out. 

I  commend  you  all  to  the  grace  of  God,  and  am  your  affec- 
tionate friend  and  brother,  John  Wesley. 

THE  TWELFTH  CONFERENCE 

On  April  30,  1784,  the  twelfth  Conference  began  at 
Ellis's  Chapel  and  closed  in  Baltimore  May  28.  No  new 
principle  of  law  was  introduced,  and  no  rule  made.  The 
21st  question  was,  '*How  shall  we  conduct  ourselves  to- 
ward European  preachers?"  And  the  answer  is  necessary 
to  the  explanation  of  subsequent  events: 

If  they  are  recommended  by  Mr.  Wesley,  will  be  subject  to 
the  American  Conference,  preach  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  four 
volumes  of  Sermons  and  Notes  on  the  Neiv  Testament,  keep  the 


36   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


circuits  they  are  appointed  to,  follow  the  direction  of  the  London 
and  American  Minutes,  and  be  subject  to  Francis  Asbury  as 
General  Assistant,  while  he  stands  approved  by  Mr.  Wesley  and 
the  Conference,  we  will  receive  them;  but  if  they  walk  con- 
trary to  the  above  directions,  no  ancient  right  or  appointment 
shall  prevent  their  being  excluded  from  our  connection. 

Few,  if  any,  in  America  or  Europe  foresaw  the  events 
in  Methodism  which  were  soon  to  occur  first  in  England 
and  then  in  the  United  States. 


CHAPTER  Y 


A  Commissioner  with  Extraordinary  Powers 

The  Weslej-an  Methodist  societies  in  America  were 
organized  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Decem- 
ber, 1784.  As  resi)ects  lis  origin,  the  personal  elements 
of  wliich  It  was  formed,  the  principles  upon  which  it  was 
founded,  the  spirit  which  it  endeavored  to  perpetuate, 
and  the  circumstances  under  which  the  organization  was 
effected,  it  has  no  parallel  in  ecclesiastical  history. 

Wesley's  tremendous  problem 
Representations  from  America  had  convinced  Wesley 
that,  though  apparent  unity  upon  the  question  of  the  non- 
administration  of  the  sacraments  had  been  attained,  the 
truce  would  be  but  temporary. 

Most  of  the  clergy  of  the  English  Church  had  returned 
to  England  during  the  Revolution.  The  Presbyterians 
would  not  baptize  the  children  of  Methodists  unless  at 
least  one  of  the  parents  professed  faith  in  their  doctrines, 
nor  admit  them  to  the  communion  unless  they  became 
members  of  their  Church.  The  Baptists  fellowshiped 
none  except  those  who  had  been  baptized  on  profession 
of  faith  and  by  immersion.  The  opposition  of  Methodists 
to  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  decrees  and  the  final  per- 
severance of  the  saints  caused  them  to  be  generally  re- 
garded as  heretics.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  English 
Church  had  ceased  in  the  United  States  and  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  had  not  been  organized. 

The  membership  of  the  Methodist  societies  was  rapidly 
growing.  It  was  obvious  that  individual  withdrawals 
would  take  ])lace  in  increasing  number  and  disintegration 
occur  unless  relief  should  be  speedily  given. 

37 


38   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


DOCTOR  THOMAS  COKE 

A  person  hitherto  unknown  to  American  Methodism 
was  now  to  appear  upon  the  scene.  In  1776  Wesley 
arrived  at  Kingston,  England,  where  he  met  a  clergyman 
named  Thomas  Coke,  who  had  ridden  twenty  miles  to 
meet  him.  Coke  was  a  native  of  Wales,  the  only  child 
of  wealthy  parents,  and  an  alumnus  of  Jesus  College, 
Oxford.  He  had  been  intended  for  the  profession  of  law, 
but  became  a  clergyman^  though  after  his  examination 
the  degree  of  LL.D.  was  conferred  upon  him  by  Oxford. 
As  a  preacher  he  displayed  rare  gifts.  Possessing  a  for- 
tune, he  enlarged  the  church  of  which  he  was  rector  at 
his  own  expense,  to  accommodate  the  crowds  who  gath- 
ered to  hear  him.  At  that  place  he  met  Thomas  Maxfield, 
a  preacher  originally  sent  out  by  W^esley,  but  ordained 
by  the  Bishop  of  Londonderry,  who  in  the  ceremony  used 
this  language:  "Sir,  I  ordain  you  to  assist  that  good 
man  [John  Wesley],  that  he  may  not  work  himself  to 
death."  Maxfield,  knowing  the  reputation  of  Coke,  sought 
his  acquaintance  and  explained  to  him  the  necessity  and 
nature  of  conversion.  Coke  became  the  subject  of  con- 
scious spiritual  regeneration,  and  discarded  his  notes 
in  preaching;  and  such  unction  attended  his  first  sermon 
without  them  that  hearers  were  awakened.  Crowds  now 
followed  him  wherever  he  spoke.  He  instituted  lectures 
in  the  adjacent  villages;  and  neighboring  clergymen  com- 
plained to  the  Rishop,  who  said  that  "all  lie  could  do 
would  be  to  suspend  him,  which  would  make  him  a 
martyr,"  and  therefore  "he  thought  best  not  to  do  it." 
An  accusation  was  laid  before  the  Bishop  of  Bath  and 
Wells,  who  nrerely  admonished  him.  Finally,  the  rector 
of  the  parish.  Coke  being  a  curate,  was  besought  to  dis- 
miss him,  which  was  done. 

It  was  shortly  after  this  event  that  Wesley  met  him; 


A  COMMISSIONER  WITH  EXTRAORDINARY  POWERS  39 


and  after  the  interview  they  carried  on  a  correspondence 
for  about  one  year,  when  Wesley  recorded  in  his  journal : 
"I  went  forth  to  Taunton  with  Dr.  Coke,  who,  being  dis- 
missed from  his  curacy,  has  determined  to  bid  adieu  to 
his  honorable  name  and  cast  in  his  lot  with  us."  As 
Coke  had  become  one  of  the  most  attractive  preachers 
in  England,  Wesley  appointed  him,  in  1780,  to  superin- 
tend the  affairs  of  the  London  Circuit.  Toward  the  close 
of  the  same  year  Wesley  designated  him  to  visit  the 
societies  in  Ireland  alternately  with  himself  once  in  every 
two  years,  leaving  him  free  to  take  such  journeys  in  Eng- 
land as  prudence  might  direct.  By  virtue  of  his  legal 
knowledge  and  training  he  was  of  great  value  to  Wesley, 
who  appears  to  have  consulted  him  upon  every  important 
step. 

WESLEY  AND  COKE  CONFER 

In  February,  1784,  Wesley  invited  Coke  to  his  private 
chamber,  and  after  general  conversation  said  to  him  in 
substance:  "The  Revolution  in  America  has  separated 
the  United  States  from  the  mother  country  forever.  The 
episcopal  establishment  is  utterly  abolished;  the  Meth- 
odist societies  are  in  a  most  deplorable  condition ;  and 
an  appeal  has  been  made  to  me,  through  Mr.  Asbury,  to 
provide  some  mode  of  Church  government  suited  to  their 
needs."  He  also  said  that  he  had  long  revolved  the  sub- 
ject in  his  thoughts,  and  would  now  unfold  to  him  the 
plan;  that  he  did  not  intend  to  deviate  from  the  Bible; 
that,  keeping  his  eye  on  the  conduct  of  the  primitive 
Churches  in  the  ages  of  unadulterated  Christianity,  he 
had  much  admired  the  mode  of  ordaining  Bishops  which 
the  Church  of  Alexandria  had  practiced ;  that  that  church 
would  never  suffer  the  interference  of  a  foreign  Bishop 
in  any  of  their  ordinations,  but  «n  a  death  of  a  Bishop  the 
presbyters  of  that  venerable  apostolic  Church  ordained 


40   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


another  from  their  own  body  by  the  laying  on  of  their 
own  hands,  and  did  this  for  two  hundred  years. 

Wesley  said  that,  being  himself  a  presbyter,  he  wished 
Coke  to  accept  ordination  from  his  hands,  and  "to  pro- 
ceed to  the  continent  of  America,  there  to  superintend 
the  societies  in  the  United  States." 

Coke,  in  reporting  the  conversation,  said  that  he  "was 
startled  by  a  measure  unprecedented  in  modern  days,  and 
expressed  doubts  as  to  the  validity  of  Wesley's  authority." 
But  after  considering  the  matter  two  months  he  wrote 
to  Wesley  that  his  objections  were  silenced;  therefore, 
in  harmony  with  this,  at  the  Leeds  Conference,  in  July, 
1784,  the  Kev.  John  Fletcher,  a  distinguished  clergyman 
of  the  Church  of  England  and  a  devoted  friend  of  Wesley, 
being  present  with  Wesley  and  Coke,  the  question  was 
brought  to  an  issue  and  the  measure  was  decided  upon. 

Wesley  stated  his  intention  to  the  preachers  present, 
and  from  that  period  he  considered  the  appointment  as 
actually  made.  At  this  Conference  Eichard  Whatcoat 
and  Thomas  Vasey  offered  their  services  to  accompany 
Coke  in  the  character  of  missionaries. 

COKE  ORDAINED  SUPERINTENDENT 

Wesley  wrote  in  his  Journal:  "On  Wednesday,  Sep- 
tember 1st,  being  now  clear  in  my  own  mind,  I  took  a 
step  which  I  had  long  weighed,  and  appointed  three  of 
our  brethren  to  go  and  serve  the  desolate  sheep  in  America, 
which  I  verily  believe  Avill  be  much  to  the  glory  of  God." 
At  Bristol,  Wesley,  assisted  by  Coke  and  the  Kev.  James 
Creighton,  each  of  them  being  a  presbyter  of  the  Church 
of  England,  ordained  Whatcoat  and  Vasey  presbyters 
for  America.  Wesley  also  ordained  Coke  a  Sujjerin- 
tendent,  giving  him,  under  his  hand  and  seal,  a  certificate 
of  which  the  original  is  extant: 

To  all  to  whom  these  presents  shall  come,  John  Wesley,  late 


A  COMMISSIONER  WITH  EXTRAORDINARY  POWERS  41 


Fellow  of  Lincoln  College,  in  Oxford,  presbyter  of  the  Church  of 
England,  sendeth  greetings: 

Whereas,  many  of  the  people  in  the  Southern  provinces  of 
North  America,  who  desire  to  continue  under  my  care,  and  still 
adhere  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Church  of  England, 
are  greatly  distressed  for  want  of  ministers  to  administer  the 
sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  according  to  the 
usages  of  the  same  Church;  and,  whereas  there  does  not  appear 
to  be  any  other  way  of  supplying  them  with  ministers: 

Know  all  men,  that  I,  John  Wesley,  think  myself  to  be  provi- 
dentially called  at  this  time  to  set  apart  some  persons  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry  in  America.  And,  therefore,  under  the 
protection  of  Almighty  God,  and  with  a  single  eye  to  His  glory, 
I  have  this  day  set  apart  as  a  Superintendent,  by  the  imposition 
of  my  hands,  and  prayer  (being  assisted  by  other  ordained 
ministers),  Thomas  Coke,  Dr.  of  civil  law,  a  presbyter  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  a  man  whom  I  judge  to  be  well  qualified 
for  that  great  work.  And  I  do  hereby  recommend  him  to  all 
whom  it  may  concern,  as  a  fit  person  to  preside  over  the  flock 
of  Christ.  In  testimony  whereof  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand 
and  seal,  this  second  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-four. 

John  Wesley. 

Wesley's  explanatory  letter 

Wesley  gave  Coke  a  letter  intended  to  explain  the 
grounds  on  which  he  had  taken  this  step,  which  letter 
he  instructed  Coke  to  print  and  circulate  among  the  so- 
cieties upon  his  arrival  in  America : 

Bbistol.  September  10,  1784. 
To  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren  in  North  America: 

2.  Lord  King's  Account  of  the  Primitive  Church  convinced 
me,  many  years  ago,  that  Bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same 
order,  and,  consequently,  have  the  same  right  to  ordain.  For 
many  years  I  have  been  importuned  from  time  to  time  to  exer- 
cise this  right,  by  ordaining  part  of  our  traveling  preachers. 
But  I  have  still  refused,  not  only  for  peace'  sake,  but  because  I 
was  determined,  as  little  as  possible,  to  violate  the  established 
order  of  the  national  Church,  to  which  I  belonged. 


42   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


3.  But  the  case  is  widely  different  between  England  and 
North  America.  Here  there  are  Bishops  who  have  a  legal  juris- 
diction. In  America  there  are  none,  and  but  few  parish  min- 
isters: so  that  for  some  hundred  miles  together  there  is  none 
either  to  baptize  or  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here, 
therefore,  my  scruples  are  at  an  end;  and  I  conceive  myself  at 
full  liberty,  as  I  violate  no  order  and  invade  no  man's  right, 
by  appointing  and  sending  laborers  into  the  harvest. 

4.  I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Francis 
Asbury,  to  be  joint  kiuperintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North 
America.  As  also  Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey  to  act 
as  ciders  among  them,  by  baptizing  and  ministering  the  Lord'3 
Supper. 

John  Wesley, 

coke's  arrival  in  AMERICA 

Coke,  as  Superintendent,  accompanied  by  the  presby- 
ters, Whatcoat  and  Vasey,  sailed  for  America  on  the  18th 
of  September,  and,  after  struggling  with  tempests,  reached 
New  York  on  the  3d  of  November.  Soon  after,  they  met 
John  Dickins,  the  Methodist  preacher  of  the  city.  To  him 
Coke  unfolded  the  plans  of  Wesley  and  his  own  relation 
to  them.  Dickins,  though  he  had  been  in  full  sympathy 
with  the  proceedings  of  the  Fluvanna  Conference,  ap- 
proved these  plans  without  reserve. 

Coke  preached  his  first  sermon  in  John  Street  Chapel 
on  the  night  of  his  arrival,  and  after  two  or  three  days 
set  off  for  Philadelphia,  arriving  on  Saturday  evening,  No- 
vember 6,  As  he  was  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, he  preached  by  invitation  the  next  morning  for 
Dr,  McGaw,  in  Saint  Paul's  Church.  In  the  evening  he 
preached  to  the  Methodist  society  at  Saint  George's. 
Concerning  this  he  writes:  "After  preaching  I  opened  to 
the  society  our  new  plan  of  Church  government  and  I 
have  reason  to  believe  that  they  all  rejoice  in  it."  Dr, 
White,  afterward  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  called  upon 
him  and  invited  him  to  occupy  his  pulpit  on  the  ensuing 


A  COMMISSIONER  WITH  EXTRAORDINARY  POWERS  43 


Sabbath,  The  news  of  Coke's  arrival  spread,  and  on  the 
14th  of  November,  when  he  and  Whatcoat  reached  Bar- 
ratt's  Chapel,  Delaware,  Asbury  was  present  in  the  con- 
gregation. After  the  sermon  Coke  and  Whatcoat  admin- 
istered the  Holy  Communion,  which,  being  the  first  time 
that  it  was  done  with  Wesley's  authority,  made  the  occa- 
sion "memorable  as  one  of  solemn  joy." 

COKE  AND  ASBURY  MEET 

Asbury  introduced  himself  to  Coke  and  they  had  a 
private  conversation  concerning  the  aflairs  of  the  society 
in  America.  Asbury  said  that  he  had  collected  a  number 
of  the  preachers  to  form  a  council,  and  if  it  should  be 
deemed  expedient,  they  would  immediately  call  a  Con- 
ference. As  all  considered  it  necessary,  Garrettson  was 
sent  with  instructions  to  members  to  notify  all  accessible 
preachers  to  meet  in  Baltimore  on  Christmas  Eve. 

During  the  interval  Asbury  continued  his  journeys  over 
the  western  shore  of  Maryland,  accompanied  by  Whatcoat 
and  Vasey,  and  Coke  traveled  according  to  the  plan 
agreed  upon  between  himself  and  Asbury.  Coke,  Asbury, 
Whatcoat,  Vasey,  and  William  Black,  founder  of  Method- 
ism in  Nova  Scotia,  met  at  Abingdon  and,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  Whatcoat,  journeyed  to  Perry  Hall,  the  residence 
of  a  wealthy  Methodist,  about  nine  miles  from  Baltimore. 
On  Friday,  December  24,  they  rode  into  Baltimore. 

Differences  of  opinion  have  arisen  as  to  the  date  on 
which  the  Conference  which  transformed  the  dependent 
society  into  an  independent  Church  began  its  session. 
Lee  and  the  published  Minutes  represent  that  it  was  on 
the  27th  of  December,  Bangs  and  Wakeley  on  the  25th, 
but  Coke's  Certificate  of  Asbury's  Ordination,  Coke's 
Journal,  Ashury's  Journal,  and  Whatcoat's  Journal  make 
it  the  24th.  On  their  authority  the  historian  Stevens 
accepts  that  date. 


A  CHURCH  IN  THE  MAKING 


CHAPTER  VI 


Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

In  this  chapter  is  recorded  only  the  series  of  events 
involved  in  the  transformation  of  a  cluster  of  societies 
into  a  Church.  The  significance  of  these  events  in  sub- 
sequent constitutional  and  legislative  action  will  be  em- 
phasized in  the  development  of  the  new  communion  of 
Christians. 

MEMBERS  OF  THE  "CHRISTMAS  CONFERENCE" 

Coke  records  that,  of  the  eighty-one  preachers  in  the 
connection,  nearly  sixty  were  jnesent  in  the  assembly 
that  performed  the  momentous  deed;  but  only  the  names 
of  twenty-nine  have  been  ascertained.  These  are  :  Thomas 
Coke,  Francis  Asbury,  William  Black,  Caleb  Eoycr, 
James  O.  Cromwell,  LeRoy  Cole,  John  Dickins,  ]Cdward 
Dromgoole,  Ira  Ellis,  Reuben  Ellis,  Josejjh  Everett,  Jona- 
than Forrest,  Freeborn  Garrettson,  William  Glendenning, 
William  Gill,  Lemuel  Green,  John  Haggerty,  Jeremiah 
Lambert,  Richard  Ivey,  James  O'Kelly,  William  Phoebus, 
Ignatius  Pigman,  Nelson  Reed,  Francis  Poythress,  John 
Smith,  Thomas  Vasey,  Thomas  Ware,  William  Watters, 
Richard  Whatcoat.^ 

ACCOUNT  OF  THE  PROCEEDINGS 

The  Conference  convened  at  ten  o'clock;  Coke  presided; 
Wesley's  letter  was  read  and  each  part  critically  con- 
sidered, Coke  naturally  being  an  expert  coininentator. 
Thomas  Ware  states  that  it  was  "cordially  apjtrovcd." 

'  The  evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  twenty-nine  wliosc  nnincs  nro  here  civen 
may  be  found  in  the  clearest  and  most,  condensed  form  in  the  Cenlennial  Ilislnry 
of  American  Mcthudism,  by  John  Atkiuson,  D.D.  Published  by  The  Methodist  Book 
Concern,  1884. 

47 


48   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


The  next  step  was  to  form  themselves  into  "an  inde- 
pendent Church" ;  Asbui'y  says,  "An  Episcopal  Church, 
and  to  have  Superintendents,  Elders  and  Deacons." 

The  statement  by  Asbury  that  the  Conference  spent  its 
time  "debating  freely,  and  detenu iniiuj  all  things  hy  a 
majority  of  votes/'  marks  a  new  era,  and  raises  a  pre- 
sumption that  in  all  its  actions  the  body  understood 
precisely  what  it  was  doing. 

The  accounts  of  those  present  concerning  what  was  en- 
acted concur  in  all  essentials.  Whatcoat's  is  that  the 
Conference  "agreed  to  form  a  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  which  the  Liturgy  [as  presented  by  Wesley] 
should  be  read,  and  the  sacraments  be  administered  by  a 
Superintendent,  Elders,  and  Deacons."    Watters  writes: 

We  formed  ourselves  into  a  separate  Church.  This  change 
was  proposed  to  us  by  Mr.  Wesley  after  we  had  craved  his  ad- 
vice on  the  subject;  but  could  not  take  effect  till  adopted  by  us, 
which  was  done  in  a  deliberate  formal  manner,  at  a  Conference 
called  for  that  purpose,  in  which  'there  was  not  one  dissenting 
vote. 

Asbury  refused  to  accept  the  office  of  Superintendent 
merely  on  the  appointment  of  Wesley,  but  desired  an  elec- 
tion by  the  Conference.  Both  Coke  and  Asbury  were 
unanimously  elected. 

ware's  description 

The  account  given  by  Ware  being  the  most  lucid  and, 
on  the  points  covered,  the  most  definite,  it  is  here  inserted 
in  full. 

At  the  Christmas  Conference  we  met  to  congratulate  each 
other,  and  to  praise  the  Lord  that  He  had  disposed  the  mind  of 
our  excellent  Wesley  to  renounce  the  fable  of  uninterrupted 
succession,  and  prepare  the  way  for  furnishing  us  with  the 
long-desired  privileges  we  were  thenceforward  expecting  to 
enjoy.  The  announcement  of  the  plan  devised  by  him  for  our 
organization  as  a  Church  filled  us  with  solemn  delight.  .  .  .  We, 


ORGAXIZATION  OF  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  49 


therefore,  according  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  received  and 
followed  the  advice  of  Mr.  Wesley,  as  stated  in  our  Form  of 
Discipline.  After  Mr.  Wesley's  letter,  declaring  his  appointment 
of  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury  joint  Superintendents  over  the 
Methodists  in  America,  had  been  read,  analyzed,  and  cordially 
approved  by  the  Conference,  the  question  arose,  "What  name 
or  title  shall  we  take?"  I  thought  to  myself,  "I  shall  be  satisfied 
that  we  be  denominated,  'The  Methodist  Church,' "  and  so 
whispered  to  a  brother  sitting  near  me.  But  one  proposed — I 
think  it  was  John  Dickins — that  we  should  adopt  the  title  of 
"Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  Mr.  Dickins  was,  in  the  esti- 
mation of  his  brethren,  a  man  of  sound  sense  and  sterling 
piety,  and  there  were  few  men  on  the  Conference  floor  heard 
with  greater  deference  than  he.  Most  of  the  preachers  had  been 
brought  up  in  what  was  called,  "The  Church  of  England";  and, 
all  agreeing  that  the  plan  of  general  superintendence,  which  had 
been  adopted,  was  a  species  of  episcopacy,  the  motion  on  Mr. 
Dickins  suggestion  was  carried  without,  I  think,  a  dissenting 
voice.  There  was  not,  to  my  recollection,  the  least  agitation  on 
the  question.  Had  the  Conference  indulged  a  suspicion  that 
the  name  they  adopted  would  be,  in  the  least  degree,  offensive 
to  the  views  or  feelings  of  Mr.  Wesley,  they  would  have  aban- 
doned it  at  once,  for  the  name  of  Mr.  Wesley  was  inexpressibly 
dear  to  the  Christmas  Conference,  and  especially  to  Mr.  Asbury 
and  Dr.  Coke.* 

ORDINATION  OF  ASBURY 

On  the  second  day  of  the  session  Coke,  assisted  by 
Vasey  and  Whatcoat,  ordained  Asbury  a  deacon,  and  on 
the  third  day  an  elder;  the  day  after  that  he  was  conse- 
crated a  superintendent,  Coke  and  the  elders  being 
assisted  by  the  Kev.  Philip  William  Otterbein,  of  the 
Getman  Reformed  Church.  The  invitation  to  partici- 
pate was  extended  to  Otterbein  at  the  request  of  Asbury, 
who  had  long  been  on  friendly  terms  with  him. 

Several  days  were  spent  in  perfecting  a  Discipline,  in 
the  selection  of  preachers  on  whom  to  confer  "orders," 
and  in  the  ordinations  of  those  chosen.  The  first  Dis- 
cipline was  adopted  by  this  convention. 

>Li7e  of  Thomas  Ware,  pp.  105,  106. 


50   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

In  anticipation  of  this  event  Wesley  prepared  and  had 
printed  for  the  use  of  the  Church  in  America  a  Liturgy 
abridged  from  that  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  a  col- 
lection of  Psalms  and  Hymns.  The  Liturgy  was  entitled 
''The  Sunday  Service  of  the  Methodists  in  North  America, 
with  other  Occasional  Services."  The  Hymn  Book  was 
entitled  "A  Collection  of  Psalms  and  Hymns  for  the 
Lord's  Day." 

The  Articles  of  Religion  of  the  Church  of  England 
were  reduced  from  thirty-nine  to  twenty-four,  and  those 
which  were  retained  so  altered  as  to  eradicate  all  traces 
of  Romanism,  High  Church  ritualism,  and  Calvinism.^ 
A  new  article  was  adopted,  as  follows : 

XXIII.    Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

The  Congress,  the  general  assemblies,  the  governors,  and 
councils  of  state,  as  the  delegates  of  the  people,  are  the  rulers  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  according  to  the  division  of  power 
made  to  them  by  the  general  act  of  confederation,  and  by  the 
constitutions  of  their  respective  States.  And  the  said  States 
ought  not  to  be  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction. 

THE  BINDING  >IINUTB 

After  the  organization,  the  ordinations,  and  the  per- 
fecting of  the  Discipline,  the  most  far-reaching  and  per- 
plexing act  of  this  convention  was  the  passage  of  the 
following  "binding  Minute": 

Question  2.  What  can  be  done  in  order  to  the  future  union  of 
the  Methodists? 

Answer.  During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley  We  acknowl- 
edge ourselves  his  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in  matters  belong- 
ing to  Church  government,  to  obey  his  commands.  And  we  do 
engage,  after  his  death,  to  do  everything  that  we  judge  con- 
sistent with  the  cause  of  religion  in  America  and  the  political 
interests  of  these  States,  to  preserve  and  promote  our  union 
with  the  Methodists  in  Europe. 


'The  doctrinal  standards  of  American  Methodism  and  the  various  provisions  of 
the  Discipline  are  discussed  under  their  appropriate  titles. 


CHAPTER  VII 


The  Initial  Years  of  the  Church 

Eighteen  thousand  members,  one  hundred  and  four 
"traveling  preachers,''  at  least  as  many  "local  preachers,'' 
and  twice  as  many  "exhorters"  represented,  but  only  in 
part,  the  results  of  the  eighteen  years  of  toil,  travel,  and 
hardship  of  preachers  and  people  since  Embury  and 
Strawbuidge  tlung  out  the  banner  of  Methodism  in  the 
New  World.  Sixty  chapels  had  been  purchased  or  built, 
and  there  were  more  than  eight  hundred  recognized 
preaching  places.  Stevens  estimates  that  to  the  eighteen 
thousand  members  should  be  added  ten  times  as  many 
hearers,  "Thousands,"  says  Ware,  "pressed  to  him 
[Coke]  to  have  their  children  dedicated  to  the  Lord  in 
baptism,  and  to  receive  themselves  the  Holy  Supper  at 
his  hands."  Asbury  makes  similar  representations. 
Stevens  finds  no  evidence  of  recorded  dissent  to  the 
organization  of  the  Church  or  to  any  of  the  proceedings 
therewith  connected. 

The  office  of  presiding  elder  without  the  name  appears 
in  the  Minutes  of  1785.  The  legislative  powers  of  the 
Church  reposed  in  the  traveling  preachers ;  and  the  busi- 
ness originating  in  any  one  Conference  was  submitted 
by  the  Superintendents  to  the  other  Conferences  in  their 
successive  meetings.  No  legislation  of  permanent  im- 
portance took  place  during  that  year. 

In  the  latter  part  of  1786  Wesley  addressed  the  fol- 
lowing letter  to  Superintendent  Coke: 

London,  September  6,  1786. 
Dear  Sir:  I  desire  that  you  would  appoint  a  General  Confer- 
ence of  all  our  preachers  in  the  United  States  to  meet  at  Balti- 
more May  1,  1787;   and  that  Mr.  Richard  Whatcoat  may  be 
51 


52    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


appointed  Superintendent  with  Mr.  Francis  Asbury.  I  am,  dear 
Sir,  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

John  Wesley. 

To  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coke. 

This  was  not  acceptable  to  the  American  Methodists, 
and  the  General  Conference  was  not  held. 

coke's  administkation  criticized 

At  the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  1787,  the  preachers 
criticized  Superintendent  Coke  on  two  grounds :  First,  he 
had  assumed  a  right  which  had  never  been  given  him, 
having  written  from  Europe  a  letter,  altering  the  time 
and  place  of  holding  the  Conference  after  it  had  been 
determined  at  the  previous  Conference;  second,  he  had 
written  to  some  of  the  preachers  letters  which  were  cal- 
culated to  stir  up  strife  and  contention. 

Lee  remarks  that  Coke  saw  "that  the  preachers  were 
pretty  generally  united  against  him."  He  magnanimously 
acknowledged  these  faults,  begged  pardon  of  the  Con- 
ference, and  promised  not  to  meddle  with  the  affairs  of 
American  Methodism  while  he  was  out  of  the  United 
States;  and  gave  a  writing  to  that  effect.  The  state  of 
mind  of  the  Conference  is  obvious  from  the  fact  that  it 
was  discovered  necessary  to  have  the  names  of  three 
witnesses  attached  to  this  certificate. 

On  receiving  this  the  Conference  agreed  to  overlook 
what  had  occurred,  provided  the  condition  should  be 
expressed  in  the  Minutes,  which  was  done  in  this  form: 

Who  are  the  Superintendents  of  our  Church  for  the  United 
States? 

Answer.  Thomas  Coke  (when  present  in  the  States)  and 
Francis  Asbury. 

Wesley's  choice  op  garrettson,  and  result 

Another  remarkable  circumstance  occurred  in  connec- 
tion Avith  this  Coufeix'uce.   Wesley  had  sent  out  a  letter 


THE  INITIAL  YEARS  OP  THE  CHURCH  53 

directing  that  "Freeborn  Garrettson  be  ordained  a  super- 
intendent for  Nova  Scotia."  Wlien  the  subject  was  taiien 
up,  the  point  was  made  that,  if  he  was  ordained  for  that 
station,  he  should  confine  himself  wholly  to  that  place 
for  which  he  was  set  apart,  and  not  be  at  liberty  to  return 
again  to  the  United  States.  Lee  says  that  Garrettson 
"did  not  feel  freedom  to  enter  into  an  obligation  of  that 
kind,  and  chose,  rather,  to  continue  as  he  was,  and  there- 
fore was  not  ordained." 

Garrettson's  account  of  the  affair  is: 

Dr.  Coke,  as  Mr.  Wesley's  delegate  and  representative,  asked 
me  if  I  would  accept  of  the  appointment.  I  requested  the 
liberty  of  deferring  my  answer  until  the  next  day.  I  think  on 
the  next  day  the  doctor  came  to  my  room,  and  asked  me  if  I 
had  made  up  my  mind  to  accept  of  my  appointment;  I  told 
him  I  had  upon  certain  conditions.  I  observed  to  him  that  I 
was  willing  to  go  on  a  tour,  and  visit  those  parts  to  which  I 
was  appointed  for  one  year;  and  if  there  was  a  cordiality  in 
the  appointment  with  those  whom  I  was  requested  to  serve, 
I  would  return  to  the  next  Conference,  and  receive  ordination 
for  the  office  of  superintendent.' 

He  says  that  Bishop  Coke  replied,  "I  am  perfectly  sat- 
isfied," and  that  he  gave  him  a  letter  of  commendation 
to  the  brethren  in  the  West  Indies.  As  soon  as  the 
Conference  closed  Garrettson  intended  to  go  to  the  West 
India  Islands  and  afterward  to  visit  Newfoundland  and 
Nova  Scotia.  He  adds:  "What  transpired  in  the  Con 
ference  during  my  absence,  I  know  not ;  but  I  was  aston- 
ished, when  the  appointments  were  read,  to  hear  my 
name  mentioned  to  preside  in  the  Peninsula."^ 

The  fact  was  that  the  Conference  did  not  want  to  lose 
Garrettson,  who  was  one  of  the  most  loved  and  trusted 
of  the  early  preachers. 


'Bangs,  Life  of  Garrettson,  p.  166. 
2Ibid.,  p.  166. 


54   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


OPPOSITION  TO  WESLEY 

Wesley  had  also  directed  that  Whatcoat  be  ordained 
a  joint  superintendent  with  Asbury.  The  preachers 
objected  on  grounds  summarized  by  Lee  as  follows:  First, 
that  he  was  not  qualified  to  take  charge  of  the  connec- 
tion; second,  they  were  apprehensive  that  if  Whatcoat 
was  ordained,  AVesley  would  recall  Asbury  to  England. 

Ware  says,  "Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  Mr.  Whatcoat 
a  superintendent,  and  instructed  Dr.  Coke  to  introduce 
a  usage  among  us  to  which  I  may  safely  say  there  was 
not  one  of  the  preachers  inclined  to  submit,  much  as  they 
loved  and  honored  him."  He  refers  to  the  fact  that 
Wesley  ''had  called  his  preachers  together  not  to  legis- 
late but  to  confer."  The  Conference,  when  formed  into 
a  Church  in  1784,  had  passed  and  inserted  in  the  Minutes 
this  statement:  "During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley 
we  acknowledge  ourselves  as  sons  in  the  gospel,  ready  in 
matters  belonging  to  Church  government  to  obey  his 
commands."  Wesley,  conformably  to  his  own  usage,  had 
instructed  Coke  to  put  as  few  questions  to  vote  as  pos- 
sible, saying,  "//  you,  Brother  Aslurij,  and  Brother 
Whatcoat  are  agreed,  it  is  enough."  , 

"coke  upholds  binding  minute" 
Coke  contended  that  on  the  basis  of  that  "binding 
minute"  they  were  obliged  to  receive  Whatcoat.  Many 
of  the  members  argued  that  they  were  not  at  the  Con- 
ference when  that  engagement  was  entered  into,  and  did 
not  consider  themselves  bound  by  it.  Other  preachers 
who  were  at  the  Conference  that  organized  the  Church, 
said  that  at  that  time  they  were  ready  "to  obey  his  com- 
mands," but  they  "did  not  feel  ready  now  to  obey." 

Ware  remarks:  "To  place  the  power  of  deciding  all 
questions  discussed,  or  nearly  all,  in  the  hands  of  the 
Superintendents  was  what  could  never  be  introduced 


THE  INITIAL  YEARS  OF  THE  CHURCH 


55 


among  us."  The  brethren  concluded  that  the  issue  was 
vital,  and  that  the  rule  binding  them  to  obey  Wesley  must 
be  rescinded.  Ware  testifies,  however,  that  he  did  not 
vote  in  favor  of  rescinding.  "Some  thought  it  would  be 
time  enough  to  do  so  when  our  Supcrintendrnts  should 
claim  to  decide  questions  independently  of  the  Confer- 
ence, ichich,  it  teas  confidently  believed,  they  never  would 
do." 

COMMENTS  OF  LEE  AND  ASBURT 

Lee's  comment  on  the  proceeding  is:  "This  step  of 
receding  from  the  above  engagement  was  afterward  con- 
sidered by  some  disaffected  persons  as  improper.  If  there 
was  anything  improper  in  the  business,  it  was  in  entering 
the  engagement,  and  not  in  departing  from  it." 

Asbury  in  his  journal,  alluding  to  the  minute,  writes : 
/  never  approved  of  that  binding  minute.  I  did  not  think  it 
practical  expediency  to  obey  Mr.  Wesley,  at  three  thousand  miles 
distance,  in  all  matters  relative  to  Church  government;  neither 
did  Brother  Whatcoat,  nor  several  others.  At  the  first  General 
Conference  I  was  mute  and  modest  when  it  passed,  and  I  was 
mute  when  it  was  expunged.  For  this  Mr.  Wesley  blamed  me, 
and  was  displeased  that  I  did  not  rather  reject  the  whole  con- 
nection, or  leave  them,  if  they  did  not  comply.  But  I  could  not 
give  up  the  connection  so  easily,  after  laboring  so  many  years 
with  and  for  them.^ 

Wesley  was  greatly  displeased,  and  the  next  year,  writ- 
ing to  Asbury,  said:  "There  is  indeed  a  wide  difference 
between  the  relation  wherein  you  stand  to  the  Americans 
and  the  relation  wherein  I  stand  to  all  Methodists.  You 
are  the  elder  brother  to  the  American  Methodists;  I  am, 
under  God,  the  father  of  the  whole  family." 

The  value  of  these  historic  facts  inheres  in  the  light 
that  they  shed  upon  the  estimate  of  the  power  of  the 
Conference,  and  of  the  Superintendents  in  relation  to 
them. 


^Aaburi/a  Journal,  vol.  ii,  p.  322. 


56   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 
PIHST  USE  OF  THE  TERM  "BISHOP" 

In  the  Minutes  for  the  year  1788  the  first  question  is, 
"Who  are  the  Bishops  of  our  Church  for  the  United 
States?"  Wesley's  name  is  not  mentioned,  and  the 
answer  to  this  question  is,  "Thomas  Coke,  Francis 
Asbury."  The  Minutes  were  published  by  the  Superin- 
tendents (practically  by  Asbury),  and  this,  although  the 
word  "Superintendent"  had  appeared,  was  the  tirst  time 
that  they  had  ever  given  themselves  the  title  of  Bishops. 

Lee  says  they  "changed  the  title  themselves  without  the 
consent  of  the  Conference;  and  at  the  next  Conference 
they  asked  the  preachers  if  the  word  'Bishop'  might 
stand  in  the  Minutes,  assigning  as  a  reason  that  it  was 
a  Scripture  name,  and  the  meaning  was  the  same  with 
that  of  Superintendent."  Some  opposed  the  alteration, 
but  a  majority  agreed  to  let  the  word  "Bishop"  remain. 

NOT  A  GENERAL  CONFERENCE 

It  was  maintained  by  some  that  the  Conference  held  in 
Baltimore  May  1,  1787,  was  a  General  Conference,  and 
should  be  classed  as  such.  This  subject  is  discussed  at 
length  by  Stevens,  and  it  is  demonstrated  that  it  was 
not  a  General  Conference,  but  simply  the  last  Annual 
Conference  of  the  year.  The  grounds  on  which  it  was 
affirmed  to  be  a  General  Conference  were  that  "Wesley 
asked  Coke  to  appoint  such  a  Conference";  that  he 
"expected  Whatcoat  to  be  made  superintendent,"  and 
"Garrettson  superintendent  for  the  British  Dominions  in 
America";  that  "Coke  wrote  to  the  preachers  to  attend 
a  General  Conference";  that  "the  Baltimore  Conference 
met  at  the  time  and  place  proposed  by  Wesley."  These 
presimiptions  are  answered  in  several  ways.  One  is  in 
the  conclusion  of  Coke's  letter  to  the  General  Conference 
of  1808:  "We  had  at  that  time  [1791]  no  regular  General 
Conference;  one  only  had  been  held  in  the  year  1784." 


THE  INITIAL  YEARS  OF  THE  CHURCH 


57 


WESLEY'S    STATUS    IN    AMERICAN  METHODISM 

Wesley  was  sadly  grieved  that  his  name  was  left  out 
of  the  Minutes;  and  the  members  of  the  Conference 
desired  to  insert  it  again  as  respectfully  as  they  could 
without  jeoparding  their  liberties.  In  the  official  Min- 
utes of  1789,  as  published  by  The  Methodist  Rook  Concern 
from  the  reprint  made  in  the  year  1813,  the  questions 
relating  to  the  episcopal  office  are  published  in  this  way : 

Question  1.    Who  are  the  persons  that  exercise  the  episcopal 
office  in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and  America? 
Answer.    John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury. 

But  that  answer  is  not  as  it  was  passed  by  the  Con- 
ference, which  was  as  follows :  "John  Wesley,  Thomas 
Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  by  regular  order  and  succes- 
sion." Bangs*  discusses  what  was  meant.  He  notes  that 
there  is  no  little  ambiguity  in  this  question  and  answer: 

-  Did  they  mean  to  say  that  these  persons  exercised  a  joint 
superintendency  both  in  Europe  and  America?  Certainly  not; 
for  neither  Thomas  Coke  nor  Francis  Asbury  exercised  any 
episcopal  powers  in  Europe.  What  they  meant  to  say  evidently 
was  this,  that  Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  acted  in  this 
country  as  joint  superintendents  over  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  while  Mr.  Wesley  exercised  a  similar  power  singly  in 
Europe,  and  a  general  superintendence  in  America. 

The  second  question  and  answer  make  this  plain : 
Question  2.    Who  have  been  elected  by  the  unanimous  suf- 
frages of  the  General  Conference  to  superintend  the  Methodist 
connection  in  America? 

Answer.    Thomas  Coke,  Francis  Asbury. 

The  case  is  clear.  The  meaning  of  the  Conference  was: 
Wesley  is  revered  and  loved  as  the  father  and  founder 
of  Methodism,  and  to  be  consulted  as  an  adviser,  but  is 
practically  an  executive  head  without  power  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church. 

^History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  i,  p.  278. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


A  Hazardous  Experiment 

In  the  year  1789  eleven  Conferences  were  held,  several 
of  them  being  within  "thirty  or  forty  miles  of  each  other," 
''which,"  says  Lee,  "was  pretty  generally  disliked;  but 
at  that  time  the  Bisho])  had  the  right  of  appointing  as 
many  Conferences  as  he  thought  proper,  and  at  such 
times  as  he  judged  best." 

There  were  various  reasons  for  this  great  number  of 
Conferences  and  their  ]>roximity;  it  saved  travel,  time, 
and  expense  to  the  preachers.  But  it  also  made  it  certain 
that  the  number  in  attendance  in  several,  if  not  a 
majority,  of  the  Conferences,  would  be  small,  and  "small 
bodies  are  more  easily  controlled  than  large,  wherein 
numbers  give  courage." 

A  plan  was  devised  by  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury, 
chiefly  by  the  latter,  and  accepted  by  the  majority  of  the 
Conferences,  which  could  never  have  been  adopted  had 
there  been  but  five  or  six  large  Conferences.  This  was 
a  provision  for  the  establishment  of  a  council  to  be 
invested  in  reality  with  extraordinary  powers  though  not 
expressed  in  legal  terms.  The  Bishops  informed  the  Con- 
ferences that  they  "had  made  it  a  matter  of  prayer,"  and 
that  it  was  the  best  arrangement  to  insure  wise  action, 
which  they  could  proi)ose.  Debate  followed,  and  there 
was  strong  opjwsition ;  but  a  majority  of  the  preachers 
agreed  to  accept  it. 

As  recorded  in  the  Minutes,  the  Question  which  pre- 
cedes the  plan  states  the  grounds  on  which  it  was  advo- 
cated, and  the  character  and  composition  of  the  council : 

Whereas,  the  holding  of  General  Conferences  on  this  exten- 
sive continent  would  be  attended  with  a  variety  of  difficulties, 
58 


A  HAZARDOUS  EXPERIMENT 


59 


and  many  inconveniences  to  the  work  of  God;  and,  whereas,  we 
judge  it  expedient  that  a  council  should  be  formed  of  chosen 
men  out  of  the  several  districts  as  representatives  of  the  whole 
connection,  to  meet  at  stated  times;  in  what  manner  is  this 
council  to  be  formed,  what  shall  be  its  powers,  and  what  farther 
regulations  shall  be  made  concerning  it? 

The  first  provision  was  that  the  council  should  consist 
of  the  Bishops  and  presiding  elders,  but  no  meeting  should 
be  held  "with  less  than  nine  members." 

If  a  presiding  elder  were  unable  to  attend,  he  had 
authority  to  send  another  elder  from  his  own  district  to 
represent  him;  but  the  elder  so  sent  should  not  have  a 
seat  without  the  approbation  of  the  Bishop  or  Bishops 
and  presiding  cJdcrs  present. 

But  if  after  these  provisions  were  complied  with,  or  for 
any  reason  "the  number  was  reduced  to  less  than  nine, 
the  Bishop  should  immediately  summon  such  elders  as 
had  not  presided  to  complete  the  number." 

The  council  was  to  have  authority  "to  mature  every- 
thing it  thought  expedient  to  preserve  the  general  union," 
"to  render  and  preserve  the  external  form  of  worship 
similar  iu  all  our  societies  throughout  the  continent," 
"to  preserve  the  essentials  of  the  Methodist  doctrines  and 
Discipline  pure  and  uncorrupted,"  "to  correct  all  abuses 
and  disorders" ;  and,  lastly,  it  was  authorized  "to  mature 
everything  that  they  may  see  necessary  for  the  good  of 
the  Church  and  for  the  promoting  and  improving  our 
colleges  and  plan  of  education."  It  was,  however,  pro- 
vided that  nothing  be  "received  as  the  resolution  of  the 
council,  unless  it  be  assented  to  unanimously  by  the 
council,"  and  nothing  so  assented  to  be  binding  in  any 
district  until  agreed  upon  by  a  majority  of  the  Conferences 
held  for  that  district.  Authority  was  given  to  the  Bishops 
"to  summon  the  Council  to  meet  at  such  times  and  places 
as  they  shall  judge  expedient." 


62   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


ASBURY  REBUKES  WARE 

An  instance  of  the  manner  in  which  Bishop  Asbury 
sometimes  overcame  opposition  is  found  in  the  autobiog- 
raphy of  Ware: 

An  unwillingness  to  oppose  Bishop  Asbury  led  a  majority  of 
the  preachers  to  yield,  so  far  as  to  permit  the  experiment  [of  the 
council]  to  be  made.  A  minority,  however,  opposed  it  from  tho 
first;  and  I  happened  to  be  one  of  that  number.  I  had  ventured 
to  say,  if  there  must  be  a  council  to  consist  of  Bishops  and  pre- 
siding elders,  the  latter  should  be  chosen,  not  by  the  Bishops, 
but  by  the  Conferences,  and  everything  done  in  council  should 
be  by  a  simple  majority.  Much  as  I  respected  our  Superin- 
tendents, for  one  I  could  not  consent  to  give  them  a  negative 
on  all  future  proceedings.  I  was  not  prepared  to  charge  the 
projectors  of  the  plan  with  any  other  than  the  purest  motives. 
Others,  however,  I  was  persuaded,  would  do  so.  And,  on  the 
whole,  it  was  better,  in  my  opinion,  to  abandon  the  council 
altogether.  He  [Bishop  Asbury]  then  gave  me  some  severe 
rebukes;  but,  nevertheless,  appointed  me  a  presiding  elder.^ 

"coke's  attitude 

Bishop  Coke  from  the  beginning  was  not  earnestly  in 
favor  of  the  council,  and  finally  strongly  oi)posed  its  con- 
tinuance. 

A  writer  explaining  Coke's  vacillation  and  subserv- 
iency in  this  and  several  other  matters,  says:  "He  was 
in  a  personal  presence  that  had  become  awesome  to  him. 
To  eat  and  sleep  and  travel  with  Asbury  was  to  feel  the 
strange  magnetism  of  his  reverent  behavior,  his  persua- 
sive logic,  his  unquestioned  sincerity,  and  his  dominating 
will." 

THE  TREATMENT  OF  LEE 

Lee  records  that  when  the  first  council  met  he  "wrote 
them  a  letter,  in  which  he  set  forth  his  objections  to  their 
plan,  and  pointed  out  the  difficulties  that  it  would  pro- 


>it/e  of  Thomas  Ware,  pp.  181.  182. 


A  HAZARDOUS  EXPERIMENT 


63 


duce,  and  contended  for  a  General  Conference ;  which 
plan  was  disapproved  of  by  all  the  council."  liow  much 
he  had  to  endure  appears  from  the  following  letter  which 
he  received  in  answer  to  his  frankly  stated  objections  in 
his  letter  to  the  council.  The  italics  are  in  the  original, 
and  it  is  a  thinly  veiled  threat  of  expulsion. 

In  Council,  Baltimore,  December  7,  1789. 
Very  Deae  Brother:  We  are  both  grieved  and  surprised  to 
find  that  you  make  so  many  objections  to  the  very  fundamentals 
of  Methodism.  But  we  consider  your  want  of  experience  in  many 
things,  and  therefore  put  the  best  construction  on  your  inten- 
tion. You  are  acquainted  with  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Church.  If  you  can  quietly  labor  among  us  under  our  Dis- 
cipline and  Rules,  we  cheerfully  retain  you  as  our  brother  and 
fellow  laborer,  and  remain  yours  in  sincere  affection. 

The  council  was  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  peoj)le, 
and  had  it  become  permanent  there  would  have  been  no 
limits  to  its  power.  To  Lee,  AVare,  and  others  who 
opposed  it  Methodism  will  ever  be  indebted. 


CHAPTER  IX 


The  First  Regular  General  Conference 

"The  Christmas  Conference,"  at  which  Asbury  was 
ordained,  and  by  which  Methodists  were  organized 
into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  though  sometimes 
spoken  of  as  the  General  Conference,  was  not  actually 
such,  for  it  had  not  been  previously  appointed  and  notice 
of  it  had  not  been  given  to  all  the  preachers.  As  has 
been  said  by  Bishop  Soule  and  others,  it  was  rather  a 
convention,  called  under  extraordinary  circumstances  to 
hear,  through  a  commissioner  appointed  by  him,  a  formal 
statement  of  "John  Wesley's  mind  and  will,"  and  to  take 
such  action  thereon  as  might  seem  wise.  Wesley  right- 
fully claimed  authority  over  the  Methodist  societies  on 
this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  as  well  as  in  England;  and 
from  the  day  that  he  sent  missionaries  to  America  this 
authority,  in  every  issue  carried  to  a  conclusion,  had 
been  conceded  to  him. 

Until  the  time  covered  by  the  events  to  be  detailed  in 
this  chapter  a  series  of  District  Conferences,  which  had 
come  to  be  known  as  Annual,  had  been  the  only  author- 
ized assembly  of  preachers.  The  extreme  difficulty  of 
securing  concurrence  in  so  many  indei)endent  bodies,  and 
the  failure  of  the  council,  made  it  irajierative  to  provide 
for  a  General  Conference.  The  Annual  Conferences  dis- 
cussed the  subject,  and  with  unanimity,  authorized  the 
Bishops  to  call  such  an  assembly  to  meet  in  Baltimore 
November  1,  3792.  The  Minutes  of  this  body  are  not  in 
existence,  and  all  known  of  its  proceedings  must  be  ascer- 
tained from  the  Disci])line  of  1792,  the  Journals  of  Coke 
and  Asbury,  Lee's  History,  and  the  reminiscences  of 
Ware,  Garrettson,  and  Colbert. 

64 


THE  FIRST  REGULAR  GENERAL  CONFERENCE 


65 


ORIGIN   OF   REGULAR  GENERAL  CONFERENCES 

This  raises  the  query,  To  whom  is  the  Church  indebted 
for  the  tirst  regular  General  Conference?  As  has  been 
shown,  to  Asbury  belongs  the  credit  of  having  suggested 
the  convention  that  organized  the  Church ;  he  had  also 
proposed  and  worked  out  the  scheme  of  the  council. 

The  principal  promoters  of  the  calling  of  this  Confer- 
ence were  Superintendent  Coke,  Jesse  Lee,  and  James 
O'Kelly.  Lee  had  proposed  it,  and  by  proposing  the 
council  had  rendered  it  necessary;  and  O'Kelly  had  de- 
manded it  in  order  to  settle  certain  serious  difficulties 
which  had  arisen  between  himself  and  Asbury. 

coke's  relation  to  general  conferences 

Coke  described  his  part  in  the  matter  in  a  letter  to 
the  General  Conference  of  1808,  of  which  the  following 
is  extracted: 

There  are  very  few  of  you  who  can  possibly  recollect  any- 
thing of  what  I  am  next  going  to  add.  Many  of  you  were  then 
only  little  children.  We  had  at  that  time  no  regular  General 
Conferences.  One  only  had  been  held  in  the  year  1784.  I  had, 
indeed,  with  great  labor  and  fatigue,  a  few  months  before  I 
wrote  this  letter  to  Bishop  White,  prevailed  on  James  O'Kelly 
and  the  thirty-six  traveling  preachers  who  had  withdrawn  with 
him  from  all  connection  with  Bishop  Asbury,  to  submit  to  the 
decision  of  a  General  Conference.  ...  At  this  Conference,  held, 
I  think,  the  latter  end  of  1792,  I  proposed  and  obtained  that 
great  blessing  to  the  American  connection,  a  permanency  for 
General  Conferences,  which  were  to  be  held  at  stated  times.' 

Coke  is  confirmed  by  Snethen's  "Keply  to  O'Kelly": 
•'It  is  nothing  strange  that  Dr.  Coke  should  be  affected 
by  Mr.  O'Kelly's  representation  of  Mr.  Asbury's  conduct; 
and,  finding  Mr.  Asbury  averse  to  a  General  Conference, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  doctor  should  insist  upon 


iThe  whole  of  this  important  letter  may  be  found  in  Bangs's  History  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  ii,  p.  207-211. 


66    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Mr.  O'Kelly's  request  being  granted.  A  few  sharp  words 
passed  between  the  two  Bishops  on  this  occasion,  but  the 
heat  was  over  in  a  minute." 

ASBURY-'S  ATTITUDE 

Asbury,  however,  in  his  Journal,  speaking  of  Coke's 
opposing  the  council,  and  of  James  O'Kelly's  letters  hav- 
ing reached  London,  says,  "I  felt  perioctly  calm,  and 
acceded  to  a  General  Conference  for  the  sake  of  peace." 
Asbury  also^  commends  and  corrects  his  friend  Snethen's 
answer  to  O'Kelly :  "It  is  well  done,  and  very  correctly 
done,  except  in  a  few  cases.  There  was  no  sharpness 
at  all  upon  my  side  with  Dr.  Coke  at  Charleston  respect- 
ing the  proposed  General  Conference,  which  was  after- 
ward held  (in  1792).  I  was  fully  convinced  that  nothing 
else  would  finish  the  unhappy  business  with  O'Kelly; 
and  that  did  finish  it." 

A  complete  demonstration  of  Asbury's  attitude  is  found 
in  a  letter  written  to  Ezekiel  Cooper  by  him  from  Peters- 
burg, Va.,  April  19,  1791 : 

.  .  .  You,  perhaps,  have  heard  of  the  General  Conference 
which  is  to  meet  instead  of  the  next  sitting  of  the  council.  A 
letter  from  Mr.  Wesley,  the  reappointment  of  Brother  Whatcoat, 
the  strange  spirit  of  murmur  here,  and  what  can  be  done  to 
amend  or  substitute  a  council,  and  perhaps  to  implead  me  on 
the  one  part,  and  a  presiding  elder  and  Conference  on  the  other. 
No  court  is  sufficient  but  a  General  Conference;  and  perhaps 
such  a  trial  may  make  me  and  others  take  care  how  we  take 
such  rash,  if  not  unwarrantable,  steps. 

You  are  a  thinking,  prudent  man;  a  word  to  the  wise — let  it 
rest  in  thy  heart. 

I  am,  as  ever,  yours, 

F.  ASBUEY.2 

Thus  it  is  clear  that  Coke,  Lee,  and  O'Kelly  were  the 
principal  promoters  of  a  General  Conference. 


'  Vol."  iii,  p.  8. 


^  Light  on  Early  Methodism,  p.  129. 


THE  FIRST  REGULAR  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  67 


It  is  also  established  that,  though  Asbury,  preferring 
a  council,  at  first  did  not  favor  a  Conference,  for  the 
sake  of  settling  an  originally  local,  though  widespread 
difficulty,  which  threatened  disruption,  and  determining 
an  important  principle,  as  well  as  to  meet  other  emerg- 
encies, did  later  desire  the  Conference,  and  so  stated 
more  than  a  year  and  a  half  before  it  was  held.  By 
thus  doing  he  conserved  the  unity  of  the  denomination 
and  rendered  it  a  signal  service,  for  his  influence  directed 
against  a  General  Conference  would  have  been  sullicient 
to  divide  the  Annual  Conferences  or  to  cause  indefinite 
postponement. 

GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1792 

The  first  regular  General  Coiifoi  i  nee,  that  of  1792,  was 
composed  of  men  profoundly  ini]>i(>ssed  with  the  impor- 
tance of  the  occasion  and  with  their  i)ersonal  resix)nsi- 
bility.  The  account  given  by  Lee  is  the  chief  authority 
for  many  of  the  circumstances  and  for  the  sentiment 
of  the  Church.  From  him  we  learn  that  the  "preachers 
who  had  been  received  into  full  connection,  came  together 
from  all  parts  of  the  United  i^tates"  w  ith  the  expectation 
that  there  would  probably  never  bo  another  Conference 
at  which  all  could  attend.  It  w  as  believed  that  this  Con- 
ference would  adoj)t  permanent  regulations  which  would 
I»revent  preachers  from  assembling  in  a  General  Confer- 
ence. This  persuasion  caused  more  to  attend  than  would 
otherwise  have  done  so. 

HASTY  ACTION  SOON  REVOKED 

Lee  informs  us  that  a  committee  was  appointed,  con- 
sisting chiefly  of  the  oldest  preachers,  to  consider  all  sub- 
jects which  might  require  legislation,  and  "when  a  ma- 
jority of  them  agreed  to  make  any  alteration,  . 
they  were  to  make  report  to  the  Conference." 


68   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

This  committee  was  afterward  enlarged  but  was  found 
to  be  of  no  real  use,  "for,"  says  Lee,  "if  a  few  of  the  com- 
mittee were  opposed  to  anything  that  was  adopted  by  a 
majority  of  their  brethren,  when  the  business  was  brought 
before  the  whole  of  the  Conference,  those  that  were  dis- 
satisfied before,  would  take  an  active  part  in  the  debates, 
and  all  the  arguments  that  had  been  brought  forward 
in  the  committee  would  be  taken  up  again,  which  did  not 
answer  the  end  intended."  The  committee  was  given  up, 
and  any  preacher  was  at  liberty  to  bring  forward  any 
matter. 

As  the  danger  of  hasty  action  in  such  a  body,  which 
had  power  to  alter,  obliterate,  or  revoke  an  existing  rule 
and  make  any  new  rule  or  regulation,  was  ever  imminent, 
it  was  therefore  resolved  that  "it  shall  take  two  thirds 
of  all  the  members  of  the  Conference,  to  make  a  new 
rule,  or  abolish  an  old  one;  but  a  majority  may  alter  or 
amend  any  rule." 

GENERAL  CONFERENCES  MADE  PERMANENT 

At  this  Conference  it  was  decided  that  a  General  Con- 
ference should  be  made  an  integral  part  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  all 
traveling  preachers  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  the 
holding  of  the  Conference  should  be  members  of  the  same. 
The  time  and  place  of  the  next  General  Conference  was 
fixed.  Several  days  were  spent  in  revising  the  Discipline, 
and  many  important  changes  and  additions  were  made. 

VITAL  ACTION  CONCERNING  BISHOPS 

Prior  to  the  General  Conference  of  1702  it  was  possible 
for  the  yearly  Conferences  to  elect  Eishops ;  but  this  body 
enacted  that  in  the  first  instance  they  should  be  elected 
by  the  General  Conference,  and  if  because  of  death,  ex- 
pulsion, or  resignation,  there  should  be  no  Bishop  remain- 


THE  FIRST  REGULAR  GENERAL  CONFERENCE 


C9 


ing,  the  General  Conference  should  elect  one.  And  the 
elders  or  any  three  of  them  that  should  be  appointed  by 
the  General  Conference  should  ordain  him.  It  was  pro- 
vided that  "if  they  saw  it  necessary,"  the  General  C(m- 
ference  should  have  power  to  exi)el  a  Bishop  for  improper 
conduct ;  and  a  method  was  established  for  a  "trial  of  an 
immoral  Bishop  in  the  intervals  of  a  General  Conference." 

Until  this  time,  the  placing  of  a  number  of  circuits  in 
the  charge  of  an  elder  had  been  done  chiefly  on  the 
authority  of  the  General  Superintendency.  Some  objec- 
tions having  been  made  to  this  usage,  and  doubts  resi>ect- 
ing  the  authority  of  the  Bishops  to  make  such  appoint- 
ments, having  been  expressed,  the  General  Conference 
authorized  such  appointment,  and  gave  Bishops  power 
to  change  presiding  elders  at  their  pleasure,  introducing, 
however,  the  restriction  that  no  Bishop  should  allow  an 
elder  to  preside  in  the  same  district  more  than  four  suc- 
cessive years. 

This  Conference  was  the  first  to  make  an  express  rule 
giving  the  wives  of  traveling  preachers  a  claim  upon 
the  funds  of  the  Church. 

LAW-MAKING  POWER  TRANSFERRED  TO  GENERAL  CONFERENCE 

Another  result  was  that  the  rules,  regulations,  or  laws 
of  the  Church  were  to  be  enacted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  not  as  heretofore  by  the  Annual.   Lee  says: 

The  proceedings  of  this  General  Conference  gave  great  satis- 
faction to  our  preachers  and  people;  and  the  divisive  spirit, 
which  had  heen  prevailing  in  different  parts  of  the  connection, 
was  considerably  checked.  And  nothing  that  was  done  gave 
more  satisfaction  than  the  plan  that  was  laid  for  having  another 
General  Conference  at  the  expiration  of  four  years  from  that 
time;  to  which,  all  the  preachers  in  full  connection  were  at 
liberty  to  come.' 


^HistOTU  of  the  Methodists,  p.  193. 


CHAPTER  X 


The  Struggle^  Defeat,  and  Secession  of  James  O'Kelly 

The  most  important  act  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1792,  and  one  which  requires  elucidation,  was  an  attempt 
to  place  a  liniitation  on  the  powers  of  Bishops  with  re- 
spect to  the  appointment  of  pastors,  and  correspondingly 
to  increase  the  power  of  Annual  Conferences. 

It  must  be  traced  from  its  germ.  In  the  Annual  Con- 
ference held  early  in  1784  there  was  a  transaction  of  much 
significance.  William  Glendenning,  who  had  come  from 
England  in  1774  and  entered  the  Conference  on  trial  a 
year  later,  began  a  movement  which  Asbury  described  as 
"devising  a  plan  to  lay  me  aside,  or  at  least  to  abridge 
my  powers."^ 

His  objections  undoubtedly  related  to  Asbnry's  power 
over  the  appointments.  Glendenning  had  been  one  of  the 
committee  of  five,  appointed  to  act  in  place  of  a  General 
Assistant  in  case  the  latter  should  return  to  England 
before  the  next  Conference  (in  1777).  This  incident, 
though  brief,  was  troublesome,  but  a  letter  opportunely 
received  from  Wesley  determined  the  jwint. 

ASBURY^S  COMMENT  ON  o'kBLLY's  LETTER 

But  on  January  12,  1790,  Asbury  received  a  communi- 
cation from  a  preacher  of  the  greatest  influence,  secured 
by  energy,  devotion  to  Methodism,  shrewdness,  unusual 
power  of  persuasion  in  personal  intercourse,  and  re- 
markable oratorical  gifts.   To  this  letter  Asbury  refers : 

I  received  a  letter  from  the  presiding  elder  of  this  district, 
James  O'Kelly:  he  makes  heavy  complaints  of  my  power,  and 


^Ashury's  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  473. 

70 


THE  SECESSION  OF  JAMES  O'KELLY 


71 


bids  me  stop  for  one  year,  or  he  must  use  his  influence  against 
me.  Power!  Power!!  There  is  not  a  vote  given  in  a  Con- 
ference in  which  the  presiding  elder  has  not  greatly  the  ad- 
vantage of  me;  all  the  influence  I  am  to  gain  over  a  company 
of  young  men  in  a  district  must  be  done  in  three  weeks;  the 
greater  part  of  them,  perhaps,  are  seen  by  me  only  at  Con- 
ference whilst  the  presiding  elder  has  had  them  with  him  all  the 
year,  and  has  the  greatest  opportunity  of  gaining  influence; 
this  advantage  may  be  abused;  let  the  Bishops  look  to  it;  but 
who  has  power  to  lay  an  embargo  upon  me,  and  to  make  of  none 
effect  the  decision  of  all  the  Conferences  of  the  union?' 

The  next  reference  to  O'Kelly  is  dated  August  21,  17!)1 : 
"I  received  the  olive  branch  from  All  is  peace — 

it  was  obtained  by  a  kind  letter  from  me  to  O'Kelly." 

This  truce  was  temporary.  It  was  certain  that  O'Kelly 
would  be  present  at  the  General  Conference  of  1702,  and 
in  a  warlike  attitude.  In  fact,  the  greatest  attack  that 
Asbury  had  experienced,  and  one  which  lacked  but  little 
of  success,  was  impending. 

o'kelly's  amendment 

On  the  second  day  of  the  session  of  the  Conference 
O'Kelly  offered  an  amendment  to  the  law  investing  the 
Bishop  with  the  ])ower  of  fixing  the  ajiijointments  of  the 
preachers  for  the  several  circuits,  which  amendment  was 
as  follows: 

After  the  Bishop  appoints  the  preachers  at  Conference  to 
their  several  circuits,  if  anyone  think  himself  injured  by  the 
appointment,  he  shall  have  liberty  to  appeal  to  the  Conference 
and  state  his  objections;  and  if  the  Conference  approve  his 
objections,  the  Bishop  shall  appoint  him  to  another  circuit. 

The  debate  on  this  amendment,  called  the  "Appeal," 
continued  three  days.  Influential  men  were  arrayed 
against  each  other.  James  O'Kelly,  Richard  Ivey,  Hope 
Hull,  Richard  Swift,  Freeborn  Garrettson,  without  a 


Journal,  vol.  ii,  p.  69. 


72   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

superior  in  the  Church,  and  William  McKendree,  after- 
ward a  Bishop,  argued  for  the  right  of  appeal.  Henry 
Willis,  Jesse  Lee,  Thomas  Morrell,  Joseph  Everitt,  and 
Nelson  Reed  opposed  the  amendment. 

WARE^S  LUMINOUS  ACCOUNT 

There  are  several  accounts  of  the  debate,  but  that  of 
Ware  is,  as  usual,  on  every  subject  which  he  touches,  the 
clearest.   He  says: 

When  the  adjustment  of  the  powers  of  the  oflBcers  in  Church 
or  State  is  the  subject  of  reflection,  we  are  not  always  certain 
how  far  we  ought  to  yield  ourselves  in  voluntary  submission. 
We  may  give  up  too  much — more  than  the  object  is  worth,  or 
the  exigence  of  the  case  requires. 

He  expresses  the  opinion  that  "had  Mr.  O'Kelly's  proposi- 
tion been  diti'erently  managed,  it  might  possibly  have  been 
carried."  That  at  first  "he  (Ware)  "did  not  see  anything 
very  objectionable  in  it";  but  during  the  debate  he  "very 
much  disliked  the  spirit  of  those  who  advocated  it,"  and 
wondered  at  their  severity : 

Some  of  them  said  that  it  was  a  shame  for  a  man  to  accept  of 
such  a  lordship,  much  more  to  claim  it;  and  that  they  who  would 
submit  to  this  absolute  dominion  must  forfeit  all  claims  to  free- 
dom, and  ought  to  have  their  ears  bored  through  with  an  awl, 
and  be  fastened  to  their  master's  door,  and  become  slaves  for 
life.  One  said  that  to  be  denied  such  an  appeal  was  an  insult 
to  his  understanding,  and  a  species  of  tyranny  to  which  others 
might  submit  if  they  chose,  but  for  his  part  he  must  be  excused 
for  saying  he  could  not' 

ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  APPEAL 

The  arguments  against  the  appeal  chiefly  related  to  the 
serious  difficulties  with  which  it  would  be  encumbered, 
such  as  that  if  one  preacher  appealed  and  the  Conference 
voted  that  his  appointment  should  be  altered,  the  Bishop 


iLi/e  of  Thomas  Ware.  pp.  220,  221. 


THE  SECESSION  OF  JAMES  O'KELLY  73 

would  have  to  remove  another  to  make  room  for  him, 
in  which  case  the  second  might  appeal,  and  the  first 
might  appeal  from  the  new  appointment;  or  others  might 
appeal  whose  appointments  these  successive  alternations 
made  unsatisfactory. 

At  that  time  each  had  liberty  to  speak  three  times  on 
any  motion.   Lee  says : 

The  arguments  for  and  against  the  proposal  were  weighty 
and  handled  in  a  masterly  manner.  There  never  had  been  a 
subject  before  us  that  so  fully  called  forth  all  the  strength  of 
the  preachers.  A  large  majority  of  them  appeared  at  first  to 
be  in  favor  of  the  motion.  But  at  last  Mr.  John  Dickins  moved 
to  divide  the  question  thus:  First,  Shall  the  Bishop  appoint  the 
preachers  to  the  circuits?  Second,  Shall  a  preacher  be  allowed 
an  appeal?  After  some  debate  the  dividing  the  question  was 
carried.  The  first  question  being  put,  it  was  carried  without  a 
dissenting  voice.  But  when  we  came  to  the  second  question, 
"Shall  a  preacher  be  allowed  an  appeal?"  there  was  a  diflaculty 
started,  whether  this  was  to  be  considered  a  new  rule,  or  only 
an  amendment  of  an  old  one.  If  it  was  a  new  rule,  it  would 
take  two  thirds  of  the  votes  to  carry  it.  After  a  considerable 
debate,  it  was  agreed  by  vote  that  it  was  only  an  amendment  of 
an  old  rule.^ 

Those  opposed  to  an  appeal  urged  that  Wesley,  the 
father  of  the  Methodist  family,  had  devised  the  plan  and 
deemed  it  essential  for  the  preservation  of  the  itinerancy. 
They  said  that,  according  to  the  showing  of  O'Kelly,  Wes- 
ley, were  he  alive,  ought  to  blush,  for,  to  the  day  of  his 
death,  he  claimed  the  right  to  station  the  preachers. 

ASBURY's  letter  to  the  CONP'ERENCE 

During  all  this  debate  Coke  presided,  Asbury  having 
retired.    The  entry  in  his  Journal  is: 

I  felt  awful  at  the  General  Conference,  which  began  November 
1,  1792.  At  my  desire  they  appointed  a  moderator,  and  pre- 
paratory committee,  to  keep  order  and  bring  forward  the  busi- 
ness with  regularity.  .  .  .  Some  individuals  among  the  preachers 

■Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  178,  179.  ^Vol.  ii.  pp.  172,  173. 


74   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


having  their  jealousies  about  my  influence  in  the  Conference,  I 
gave  the  matter  wholly  up  to  them,  and  to  Dr.  Coke,  who  pre- 
sided.   Meantime  I  sent  them  the  following  letter: 

My  Deab  Brethren:  Let  my  absence  give  you  no  pain — Dr. 
Coke  presides.  I  am  happily  excused  from  assisting  to  make 
laws  by  which  myself  am  to  be  governed:  I  have  only  to  obey 
and  execute.  I  am  happy  in  the  consideration  that  I  never  sta- 
tioned a  preacher  through  enmity,  or  as  a  punishment.  I  have 
acted  for  the  glory  of  God,  the  good  of  the  people,  and  to 
promote  the  usefulness  of  the  preachers.  Are  you  sure,  that,  if 
you  please  yourselves,  the  people  will  be  as  fully  satisfied? 
They  often  say,  "Let  us  have  such  a  pi-eacher";  and,  sometimes, 
"We  will  not  have  such  a  preacher;  we  will  sooner  pay  him  to 
stay  at  home."  Perhaps  I  must  say,  "His  appeal  forced  him 
upon  you."  I  am  one — ye  are  many.  I  am  as  willing  to  serve 
you  as  ever.  I  want  not  to  sit  in  any  man's  way.  I  scorn  to 
solicit  votes.  I  am  a  very  trembling,  poor  creature  to  hear 
praise  or  dispraise.  Speak  your  minds  freely;  but  remember, 
you  are  only  making  laws  for  the  present  time.  It  may  be,  that 
as  in  some  other  things,  do  in  this,  a  future  day  may  give  you 
further  light.    I  am  yours,  etc.,  Francis  Asbuby. 

This  letter  is  just  such  an  one  as  Asbury  should  have 
written  (if  he  wrote  at  all),  but  it  overthrows  his  Journal 
entry — "I  gave  the  matter  wholly  up  to  them  and  to  Dr. 
Coke,  who  presided." 

No  single  speech,  nor  ten,  in  the  debate  could  have  pro- 
duced an  effect  equal  to  that  of  this  letter.  It  crystallized 
all  the  vital  points  in  a  few  words.  What  argument  is 
omitted?  What  string  in  the  human  heart  is  left  un- 
touched? Not  in  all  the  annals  of  Methodism,  including 
the  wonderful  and  voluminous  letters  of  Wesley,  is  there 
one  comparable  with  this. 

During  this  long  debate  Sunday  intervened.  On  Mon- 
day it  was  resumed,  continued  through  the  day,  and,  in 
the  homely  words  of  Lee,  "At  night  we  went  to  Mr.  Otter- 
bein's  church,  and  again  continued  it  till  near  bedtime, 
when  the  vote  was  taken,  and  the  motion  was  lost  by  a 
large  majority." 


THE  SECESSION  OF  JAMES  O'KELLY 


75 


o'kelly  and  others  secede 

The  next  morning  O'Kellr,  and  certain  other  preachers 
who  had  determined  to  stand  by  him  to  the  end,  addressed 
a  letter  to  the  Conference  setting  forth  that  "on  account 
of  the  refusal  to  incorporate  the  right  of  the  preachers  to 
appeal  from  an  appointment  which  was  oppressive,  they 
could  not  in  conscience  take  any  further  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings." The  Conference  appointed  a  committee  of 
three  to  persuade  them,  if  possible,  to  resume  their  seats. 
Garrettson,  who  was  one  of  the  committee,  says  that  the 
situation  "gave  great  grief  to  the  whole  Conference."  In 
the  interview  "many  tears  were  shed,  but  we  were  not 
able  to  reconcile  him  [O'Kelly]  to  the  decision  of  the 
Conference.  His  wovmd  was  deep,  and  apparently  in- 
curable." 

After  a  day  or  two  O'Kelly  and  Coke  had  a  long  con- 
versation, in  which  the  former  brought  forward  many 
charges  both  against  Coke's  oflBcial  acts  and  also  against 
the  Conference.  This  interview  availing  nothing,  after 
staying  in  Baltimore  one  or  two  days  longer,  O'Kelly  and 
"the  preachers  that  were  particularly  influenced  by  him," 
set  out  for  Virginia.  Having  left  their  horses  about 
twelve  miles  from  the  city,  they  walked  that  distance, 
carrying  their  saddlebags,  great  coats,  and  other  belong- 
ings on  their  shoulders.  Lee,  who  gives  these  details, 
adds:  "I  stood  and  looked  after  them  as  they  went  off, 
and  observed  to  one  of  the  preachers,  that  I  was  sorry  to 
see  the  old  man  go  off  in  that  way,  for  I  was  persuaded 
that  he  would  not  be  quiet  long,  but  he  would  try  to  be 
the  head  of  some  party." 

THE  RESULTS 

The  secession  of  James  O'Kelly  and  the  preachers  who 
had  adhered  to  him  was  no  trifling  matter.    It  seriously 


7G   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

embarrassed  the  Methodist  societies  in  Virginia  and  the 
adjacent  parts  of  the  country.  The  Minutes  of  1793  con- 
tain a  Question  and  Answer  which  had  not  before  ap- 
peared : 

Q.  What  preachers  have  withdrawn  themselves  from  our  ordei 
and  connection? 

A.   James  O'Kelly,  John  Allen,  Rice  Haggard,  John  Robertson. 

Many  local  preachers  accompanied  them.  O'Kelly, 
whose  services  had  been  invaluable  and  whose  labors 
and  exposures  had  been  unceasing,  being  in  the  seventh 
decade  of  his  life,  and  weakened  physically  by  advancing 
years  and  the  effects  of  hard  work  and  privation,  Asbury 
proposed  to  the  Conference,  that  it  allow  him  forty  pounds 
per  annum,  "as  when  he  traveled  in  the  connection,  pro- 
vided he  would  be  peaceable  and  forbear  to  excite 
divisions." 

o'kelly  pounds  a  church 

O'Kelly  accepted  the  appropriation  for  a  brief  period, 
but  finally  relinquished  it  and  exerted  all  his  great 
powers  to  originate  and  build  up  a  new  Church.  At  the 
close  of  four  years,  notwithstanding  many  accessions,  the 
Methodists  showed  a  loss  of  7,.352  members.  But,  as 
Stevens  recounts,  not  all  went  to  O'Kelly,  for  the  schism 
drew  off  many  who  did  not  affiliate  with  the  new  party. 
At  that  time  the  State  of  Virginia  was  politically  divided 
into  two  parties,  the  Republicans  and  the  Federalists,  the 
former  being  largely  in  the  majority.  O'Kelly,  with  much 
shrewdness,  having  in  view  temporary  effect,  named  his 
Church  "The  Republican  Methodists."  This  begniled 
numbers.  The  promises  made  to  the  people  were  "greater 
liberties  to  lay  members,"  and  "entire  equality  in  the 
ministry."  Lee,  who  was  familiar  with  all  the  circum- 
stances and  the  territory,  sadly  writes:  "It  was  enough 
to  make  the  saints  of  God  weep  between  the  porch  and 


THE  SECESSION  OF  JAMES  O  KELLY 


the  altar,  and  that  both  day  and  night,  to  see  how 
•The  Lord's  flock  was  carried  away  captive,'  by  that 
division." 

In  1793  they  formed  a  constitution  and  gave  themselves 
the  name  before  mentioned.  Within  eight  years  they 
threw  away  this  constitution  and  changed  their  name  to 
"The  Christian  Church,"  based  on  the  principle  of  leaving 
every  man  to  interpret  the  Xew  Testament  for  himself. 

A  WAR  OF  TAMPHLETS 

A  pamphlet  war  raged  for  some  time.  It  was  begun  by 
one  published  by  O'Kelly  attacking  Asbury  and  ''his 
Church."  The  title  on  which  he  relied  to  vindicate  him- 
self and  the  Church  w^as  "The  Author's  Apology  for  Pro- 
testing against  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

Asbury  collected  facts  and  placed  them  in  possession  of 
the  Conference,  which  appointed  its  ablest  writer,  Nicho- 
las Snethen,  to  reply.  He  named  his  production,  "A  Reply 
to  an  Apology."  O'Kelly  sj>eedily  issued  "A  Vindication 
of  an  Apology."  Snethen  responded  in  "An  Answer  to 
James  O'Kelly's  Vindication  of  his  Apology."  In  such 
hot  discussions,  the  truth  is  usually  economized  accord- 
ing to  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion  and  that  often  in- 
nocently. But  a  comparison  of  such  documents  enables 
the  deliberative  and  impartial  reader  to  ascertain  the 
truth. 

m'kendree  influenced  by  o'kelly 

Among  the  preachers  who  at  first  adhered  to  O'Kelly 
was  William  McKeudree,  who,  having  been  a  traveling 
preacher  for  three  years,  had  been  ordained  an  elder  by 
Asbury.  Tradition  says  that  he  was  one  of  the  most  vehe- 
ment advocates  of  the  Appeal.  He  had  long  been  asso- 
ciated with  O'Kelly.  In  1700  the  latter  visited  McKen- 
dree  and  at  a  convention  of  preachers  in  Mecklenburg,  a 


78   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Council  was  formed  to  demand  a  General  Conference. 
The  effect  was  that  McKendree,  thoroughly  believing  in 
O'Kelly,  lost  faith  in  "the  Bishop  and  his  creatures"! 
Young  in  the  ministry  as  he  was,  he  informed  Bishop 
Asbury  that  he  had  lost  confidence  in  him,  to  which  the 
Bishop  replied:  "I  don't  wonder  at  that,  brother;  some- 
times we  can  see  with  our  eyes;  sometimes  we  can  see 
only  with  our  ears."  McKendree  had  traveled  to  the 
General  Conference  in  company  with  O'Kelly. 

Years  afterward  McKendree  wrote :  "The  old  gentleman 
[O'Kelly]  broke  off.  I  and  some  others  obtained  liberty 
of  the  Conference  to  return  home,  and  set  out  for  Virginia. 
We  had  many  consultations,  were  often  confused  in  our 
deliberations ;  and  the  rest  of  the  company  having  left  us, 
the  old  gentleman  and  myself  traveled  the  greater  part 
of  the  way  together.  He  unfolded  his  plan.  It  was  to 
be  a  'glorious  Church,'  'no  slavery,'  etc.  But  it  was 
founded  ui)on  the  supposition  that  a  ruinous  government 
was  being  introduced  by  the  revolutionizing  Conference 
he  had  left." 

But  within  a  short  time  McKendree  consented  to  take 
a  station.  The  preachers,  who  departed  from  the  Gen- 
eral Confernce,  had  done  so  before  the  Discipline  was 
revised,  and  when  it  appeared  McKendree  said :  "How  was 
I  surprised,  in  the  course  of  the  year,  to  find  the  form  of 
Discipline  entirely  different  from  what  I  had  expected, 
and  also  to  find  just  cause  to  begin  to  withdraw  my  con- 
fidence from  my  old  and  best-beloved  friend  !"^ 

ASBURY  TO  MORRELL 

Asbury  shows  in  his  correspondence  that  he  was  as 
much  "wrought  up"  by  the  controversy  as  O'Kelly  him- 


•From  McKendree's  Autobiographical  Letter  written  to  Asbury  in  1803;  Paine's 
Life  and  Times  of  WiUiam  McKendree,  vol.  i,  pp.  58-66. 


THE  SECESSION  OF  JAMES  O'KELLY  79 

self,  for  soon  after  the  Conference  he  wrote  to  his  friend, 
Thomas  Morrell : 

I  believe  now  nothing  short  of  being  an  Episcopos  was  his 
first  aim.  His  second  was  to  make  the  council  independent  of 
the  Bishop  and  General  Conference,  if  they  would  canonize  his 
writings.  This  could  not  be  done.  His  next  step  was  with  the 
authority  of  a  Pope  to  forbid  me,  by  letter,  to  go  one  step 
further  with  the  council,  after  carrying  it  once  around  the 
continent  and  through  the  first  council,  which  ordered  me  to  go 
round  and  know  the  minds  of  the  brethren.  His  following  step 
was  to  write  against  me  to  Mr.  Wesley,  who  he  knew  was  dis- 
affected to  me,  because  I  did  not  merely  force  the  American  Con- 
ference to  accede  to  Mr.  Wesley's  appointment  of  Brother  What- 
coat,  which  I  did  submit  to  Dr.  Coke  only  for  peace  with  our  old 
father.  How  moved  he  then  to  make  himself  independent  of 
me  and  the  general  connection,  and  dragged  in  the  little  Doctor 
[Coke]  whom,  a  little  before,  he  would  have  banished  from  the 
continent.  Then  he  stipulated  with  me  through  the  Doctor  to 
let  him  stay  in  that  station,  and  consented  to  leave  the  decision 
to  a  General  Conference,  and  when  the  decision  went  against 
him,  went  away.  Now  he,  who  was  one  of  the  greatest  opposers 
they  had,  is  suspected  of  raising  a  sedition  among  the  local 
preachers.  And,  lastly,  to  set  the  people  against  us.  Thus  he  has 
gone. 

o'kelly's  heresy 

Other  reasons  than  opposition  to  the  government  of  the 
Church  may  have  actuated  O'Kelly,  for  Lee  states  that, 
as  he  stood  looking  after  O'Kelly,  the  preacher  (to  whom 
he  said  that  he  was  sorry  to  see  him  go  off  in  that  way) 
informed  him  "that  Mr,  O'Kelly  denied  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  and  preached  against  it  by  saying  that  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  were  characters  and  not  persons: 
and  that  these  characters  all  belonged  to  Jesus  Christ. 
That  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost."  The  preacher  further  said  that  it  was  his  in- 
tention to  have  had  O'Kelly  tried  at  that  Conference  for 
the  false  doctrines  that  he  had  been  preaching;  and  he 
believed  that  his  leaving  the  Conference  was  more  out  of 


80   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

fear  of  being  brought  to  trial  than  on  account  of  the  Ap- 
peal. Tradition  and  considerable  evidence  show  that 
O'Kelly  did  preach,  during  the  more  than  thirty  years 
that  he  survived,  doctrines  contrary  to  those  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church. 

Asbury,  with  equal  sagacity,  courage,  and  self-denial, 
at  once  went  among  those  likely  to  be  affected  by  the 
schism  where  he  held  Confei-ences,  love  feasts,  class  and 
band  meetings,  preaching  once  or  twice  a  day  and  riding 
forty  or  fifty  miles  almost  daily. 

Lee  accompained  him,  using  his  very  considerable  in- 
fluence, and  had  it  not  been  for  these  labors  of  Asbury 
and  Lee,  a  far  larger  number  would  have  withdrawn. 

A  similar  secession  had  been  begun  by  William  Ham- 
mett,  the  center  of  which  was  in  Charleston,  South  Caro- 
lina, and  the  situation  was  seriously  complicated  with  the 
O'Kelly  faction.  Hammett  was  a  man  of  brilliant  talents 
and  had  been  a  commanding  influence  in  Charleston.  Ac- 
cording to  Lee,  he  died  in  1803,  and  the  schism,  which  he 
had  created,  shortly  after  became  extinct. 


CHAPTER  XI 

The  General  Conference  of  179G 

The  second  regular  General  Conference — the  first  whose 
Journal  was  printed — convened  in  Baltimore.  An  ad- 
dress in  the  name  of  the  General  Conference,  signed  by 
the  two  Bishops,  was  communicated  to  the  Church.  It 
contains  this  important  statement: 

In  order  to  prevent  hasty  innovations,  we  have,  therefore, 
on  a  former  occasion,  confined  solely  to  the  General  Con- 
ference the  work  of  revising  our  Form  of  Discipline,  re- 
serving for  the  yearly  Conferences  the  common  business  of 
the  connection,  as  directed  by  the  form.  Our  General  Con- 
ference is  held  once  only  in  four  years,  and  it  is  open  to 
every  preacher  in  full  connection.  Every  such  preacher  has, 
therefore,  ample  time  to  weigh  every  subject  of  importance,  to 
consult  upon  it  with  all  his  friends,  and  to  be  present  at  the 
General  Conference,  to  give  his  vote,  as  well  as  declare  his 
sentiments  at  large.  Or  he  may  deliver  his  thoughts,  in  con- 
fidence, to  one  or  more  of  his  brethren,  who  intend  to  be  present. 

BOUNDARIES  OF  CONFERENCES 

One  hundred  and  twenty  ministers  were  present,  but 
their  names  are  not  recorded.  The  Church  was  divided 
into  six  Conferences ;  and,  for  the  first  time,  their  boimd- 
aries  were  fixed.  The  New  England  included  the  aff"airs  of 
our  Church  in  New  England,  and  that  part  of  the  State  of 
New  York  which  lies  on  the  east  side  of  the  Hudson  River. 
(Permission  was  given  to  the  Bishops  to  hold  a  Confer- 
ence in  the  Province  of  Maine.)  The  Philadelphia  Con- 
ference included  the  remainder  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  east  of  the  Susquehanna 
River,  the  State  of  Delaware  and  the  rest  of  the  Penin- 
sula. The  Baltimore  comprehended  the  remainder  of 
81 


82    CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Pennsylvania,  the  remainder  of  Maryland,  and  the 
Northern  Neck  of  Virginia.  The  Virginia  Conference 
included  that  State  south  of  the  Rappahannock,  and 
North  Carolina  north  of  the  Cape  Fear  River,  also 
certain  circuits  on  the  branches  of  the  Yadkin.  The 
South  Carolina  Conference  covered  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  and  the  remainder  of  North  Carolina;  and  the 
Western  Conference  consisted  of  the  States  of  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee.  "The  Bishops  were  given  authority  to 
appoint  other  yearly  Conferences  in  the  interval  of  the 
General  Conference  if  a  suflflciency  of  new  circuits  were 
anywhere  formed  for  that  purpose." 

REASONS  FOR  LARGER  CONFERENCES 

The  General  Conference  explained  this  radical  action 
of  reducing  the  number  and  enlarging  the  territory  of  the 
Conferences  by  stating,  that  the  Conferences  had  been 
very  small,  and  that  their  dimensions  were  attended  by 
many  inconveniences: 

1.  There  were  but  few  of  the  senior  preachers,  whose  years 
and  experience  had  matured  their  judgments,  who  could  be 
present  at  any  one  Conference. 

2.  The  Conferences  wanted  that  dignity  which  every  re- 
ligious synod  should  possess,  and  which  always  accompanies  a 
large  assembly  of  gospel  ministers. 

3.  The  itinerant  plan  was  exceedingly  cramped,  from  the 
diflSculty  of  removing  preachers  from  one  district  to  another. 

These  fully  justified  the  attitude  against  small  Con- 
ferences taken  by  Lee  and  others  long  before. 

The  explanation  further  states  that  the  Conferences 
were  so  arranged  that  all  "the  members  respectively  may 
attend  with  little  difficulty,  .  .  . ;  that  the  active,  zealous, 
unmarried  preachers  may  move  on  a  larger  scale,  .  .  . 
while  the  married  preachers,  whose  circumstances  require 
them,  in  many  instances,  to  be  more  located  than  the 
single  men,  will  have  a  considerable  field  of  action  opened 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1796  83 


to  them."  Also  that  "the  Bishops  will  be  able  to  attend 
the  Conferences  with  greater  ease,  and  without  injury  to 
their  health." 

A  Deed  of  Settlement  for  the  churches  gave  the  pro- 
tection of  law  to  the  trustees  of  every  house  or  place  of 
worship 

for  the  use  of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  according  to  the  Rules  and  Discipline 
which  from  time  to  time  may  be  agreed  upon  and  adopted  by 
the  ministers  and  preachers  of  the  said  Church,  at  their  General 
Conferences  in  the  United  States  of  America;  and  in  further 
trust  and  confidence  that  they  [the  trustees]  shall  at  all  times, 
forever  hereafter,  permit  such  ministers  and  preachers,  belong- 
ing to  the  said  Church,  as  shall  from  time  to  time  be  duly 
authorized  by  the  General  Conferences  of  the  ministers  and 
preachers  of  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  by  the 
yearly  Conferences  authorized  by  the  said  General  Conference, 
and  none  others,  to  preach  and  expound  God's  Holy  Word 
therein,  etc.* 

The  necessity  of  this  deed  is  explained  and  its  pro- 
visions are  defended  in  the  Journal. 

The  Conference  recommended,  and  engaged  to  promote, 
the  publication  of  The  Methodist  Magazine. 

The  Chartered  Fund  was  established,  for  the  "benefit 
of  distressed  traveling  preachers,  for  the  families  of 
traveling  preachei-s,  and  for  the  superannuated,  and  worn- 
out  preachers,  and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  preachers." 

Attention  was  given  to  the  establishment  of  educa- 
tional institutions;  and  an  elaborate  plan  of  education 
was  prepared  and  recommended  "to  our  seminaries  of 
learning  and  to  the  public  and  members  of  our  societies." 

SETTLING  THE  STATUS  OP  COKE 

While  no  reference  is  made  to  the  election  of  another 
Bishop  in  the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1796, 
Lee  says2 : 

^Journal  of  1796.  p.  13.  2  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  247,  248. 


84   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

At  that  time  it  was  thought  proper  to  have  another  Bishop 
elected  and  ordained,  and  the  Conference  voted  that  it  should 
be  done  during  the  sitting  of  that  Conference.  After  the 
vote  was  taken,  a  difficulty  arose  about  the  manner  of  choosing, 
or  electing  a  man  to  be  ordained  a  Bishop;  and  before  the  point 
was  settled,  Dr.  Coke  begged  that  the  business  might  be  laid 
over  until  the  afternoon,  which  was  done.  When  we  met  in  the 
afternoon  the  Doctor  offered  himself  to  us,  if  we  saw  cause  to 
take  him;  and  promised  to  serve  us  in  the  best  manner  he  could, 
and  to  be  entirely  at  the  disposal  of.  his  American  brethren,  to 
live  or  die  among  them.  The  Conference  at  length  agreed  to 
the  Doctor's  proposal,  .  .  .  and  the  former  vote  for  choosing 
another  Bishop  was  dropped. 

The  Doctor  then  gave  us  the  following  statement  in  writing: 

"I  offer  myself  to  my  American  brethren  entirely  to  their 
service,  all  I  am  and  have,  with  my  talents  and  labors  in  every 
respect;  without  any  mental  reservation  whatsoever,  to  labor 
among  them,  and  to  assist  Bishop  Asbury;  not  to  station  the 
preachers  at  any  time  when  he  is  present;  but  to  exercise  all 
the  episcopal  duties,  when  I  hold  a  Conference  in  his  absence, 
and  by  his  consent,  and  to  visit  the  West  Indies  aad  France 
when  there  is  an  opening,  and  I  can  be  spared. 

"(Signed)  Thomas  Coke. 

"Conference  Room,  October  27,  1796." 

A  CRITICAL  DEBATE 

The  best  authorities,  next  to  Lee,  for  this  General  Con- 
ference are  a  letter  of  the  Rev.  John  Kobler  and  the 
Journal  of  the  Rev.  William  Colbert,  who  were  present. 
Kobler's  letter  was  written  many  years  after  the  event, 
but  he  had  kept  memoranda.   He  says : 

Lee  was  the  best  speaker  in  the  Conference.  He  first  showed 
that  there  were  several  members  in  our  connection  who  were 
well  qualified  to  fill  the  office,  having  been  long  and  well  proved; 
who  were  natives  of  the  country,  one  of  ourselves,  and  were  well 
acquainted  with  the  rules  by  which  our  civil  and  religious  privi- 
leges were  regulated.  But  his  most  powerful  argument,  I  well 
remember  was  this,  "That  the  Doctor  was  a  thoroughbred  Eng- 
lishman; and  an  entire  stranger  abroad  in  the  country  {out  of 
the  Church);  that  the  deep-rooted  prejudice  against  British 
oppression,  which  by  our  arduous  Revolutionary  struggle  we 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1796 


85 


had  so  recently  thrown  off,  still  hung  heavily,  and  was  operat- 
ing powerfully  upon  the  public  mind;  and  that  to  select  a  high 
officer  to  govern  our  Church  from  that  distant  and  tyrannizing 
nation,  .  .  .  would,  in  his  judgment,  be  a  very  impolitic  step,  and 
•would  tend  to  raise  the  suspicions  and  prejudices  of  the  public 
against  us  as  a  Church."  He  further  said  he  had  frequently 
heard  the  same  objections  made  against  us  as  an  American 
Church  for  having  a  native  of  England  (Bishop  Asbury)  at  our 
head;  and  now  to  add  another,  who,  in  many  respects,  had  not 
the  experience,  prudence,  nor  skill  in  government  that  Bishop 
Asbury  had,  would  operate  very  materially  against  the  best 
interests  of  the  Church. 

According  to  Kobler,  this  debate  lasted  two  days,  dur- 
ing which  time  Colce  "was  sechided  from  the  Conference 
room."  '"^Slr.  Lee  and  his  party  had  the  better  of  the 
cause  in  debate,  and  were  gaining  confidence  continually. 
.  .  ,  When  Bishop  Asbury  saw  how  the  matter  was  likely 
to  go,  he  rose  from  the  chair,  and  with  much  apparent 
feeling  said :  'If  we  reject  him,  it  will  be  his  ruin,  for  the 
British  Conference  will  certainly  know  of  it,  and  it  will 
sink  him  vastly  in  their  estimation.' "  This,  Kobler  says, 
put  an  end  to  the  debate.  He  also  remarks  that  "dur- 
ing the  debate,  the  Doctor  came  into  the  Conference  and 
made  a  speech" — showing  that  his  seclusion  was  not  com- 
plete. 

Colbert  is  brief  but  significant : 

Yesterday  there  was  much  talk  about  another  Bishop,  and  in 
the  afternoon  Dr.  Coke  made  an  offer  of  himself.  It  was  not 
determined  whether  they  would  receive  him.  But  to-day  I  sup- 
pose there  were  not  a  dozen  out  of  a  hundred  that  rejected  him 
by  their  votes.   This  gave  me  satisfaction. 

ANOTHER  ACCOUNT 

The  Kev.  \yilliam  Phoebus,  M.D.,  a  notable  character, 
brilliant  and  useful,  though  exceedingly  eccentric,  gives 
another  account.  In  his  Memoirs  of  Bishop  Whatcoat^ 
he  says : 

>  Page  84. 


86   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

The  question  before  the  house  was,  "If  Francis  Asbury's  seat 
as  Superintendent  be  vacated  by  death,  or  otherwise,  was  Dr. 
Coke  considered,  from  the  authority  he  had  in  the  Church,  as 
having  a  right  to  take  the  Superintendency  in  the  same  manner 
as  it  was  exercised  by  Francis  Asbury?"  Dr.  Coke  was  then 
asked  if  he  would  be  ready  to  come  to  the  United  States  and 
reside  there,  if  he  were  called  to  take  the  charge  as  Superin- 
tendent, so  that  there  might  be  a  succession  from  Wesley.  He 
agreed,  as  soon  as  he  should  be  able  to  settle  his  charge  in  Eu- 
rope, with  all  pleasure  and  possible 'dispatch  to  come  and  spend 
his  days  in  America.  The  Rev.  Superintendent  Asbury  then 
reached  out  his  right  hand  in  a  pathetic  speech,  the  purport  of 
which  was:  "Our  enemies  said  we  were  divided,  but  all  past 
grievances  were  buried,  and  friends  at  first,  are  friends  at  last, 
and  I  hope  never  to  be  divided."  The  Doctor  took  his  right  hand 
in  token  of  isubmission,  while  many  present  were  in  tears  of  joy 
to  see  the  happy  union  in  the  heads  of  department,  and  from  a 
prospect  of  the  Wesleyan  episcopacy  being  likely  to  continue  in 
regular  order  and  succession. 

The  phrases  "heads  of  department,"  "token  of  submis- 
sion," and  "Wesleyan  episcopacy"  indicate  the  almost 
paralyzing  influence  exerted  by  Asbury  on  some  minds. 
That  there  is  no  reference  in  the  Journal  to  this  important 
debate  and  its  equally  important  conclusion  is  perplexing. 
The  only  rational  inference  is  that  Bishops  Asbury  and 
Coke  did  not  wish  it  to  appear. 

After  the  close  of  the  Conference,  Coke,  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  Asbury,  continued  in  the  work  of  the  episco- 
pacy. Both  presided  at  the  Virginia  and  South  Carolina 
Conferences,  Coke  preaching  frequently,  to  the  delight  of 
all.  February  6,  1797,  he  sailed  from  Charleston,  South 
Carolina,  to  preside  over  the  English  Conference.^ 

'The  Oneral  Conference  of  1852,  on  May  25,  ordered  the  Book  Agents  to  pub- 
lish the  Jmmals  of  the  General  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
from  1800  to  1836  inclusive.  Five  days  later  the  instructions  were  enlarged  by 
the  requisition  to  include  all  extant  Minutes  from  the  organization  of  the  Church 
up  to  1800.  Dr.  John  McClintock,  to  whom  the  .supervision  of  the  work  was  com- 
mitted, cloaes  the  preface  to  the  Journals  from  1792  to  1836  inclusive  with  these 
statements:  "The  Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  for  1792  were  never  printed 
to  my  knowledge,  nor  can  I  find  the  original  copy.  Those  of  1796  were  published 
in  a  compendium  form,  which  is  now  reprinted." 


CHAPTER  XII 


The  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1804 

The  General  Conference  of  1800  at  once  took  on  a  very 
radical  spirit.  The  first  business  was  to  elect  a  secretary, 
and  the  next  to  agree  upon  rules  for  the  management  of 
business  and  the  preservation  of  order.  The  first  motion 
relating  to  the  Discipline  was  that  "the  yearly  Confer- 
ences be  authorized  by  this  General  Conference  to  nomi- 
nate and  elect  their  own  presiding  elders."  This  was 
made  the  Order  of  the  Day  for  the  ensuing  Tuesday,  the 
regular  business  of  the  Conference  having  been  begun 
on  Wednesday. 

PREPARING  TO  ELECT  A  BISHOP 

Superintendent  Coke  "moved,  that  the  new  Bishop" — 
whom  the  Conference  had  voted  to  elect — "whenever  he 
presides  at  an  Annual  Conference  in  the  absence  of  Bishop 
Asbury,  shall  bring  the  stations  of  the  preachers  into  the 
Conference  and  read  them,  that  he  may  hear  what  the 
Conference  has  to  say  upon  each  station."  But  this  was 
withdrawn  the  next  day. 

Then  Wells  "moved  that  the  new  Bishop,  in  stationing 
the  preachers,  be  aided  by  a  committee  of  not  less  than 
three,  or  more  than  four  preachers,  chosen  by  the  Con- 
ference." A  similar  motion,  but  intended  to  govern  all 
the  Bishops  "a  majority  determining,"  was  made  the  next 
day  by  Buxton,  and  later  one  by  Mansfield  to  the  same 
eflfect,  but  with  the  additional  point  that  the  Bishops 
should  still  have  the  ultimate  decision ;  but  all  three  were 
defeated. 

McClaskey  moved  "that  the  Conference  determine,  be- 
fore the  votes  be  canvassed,  the  powers  of  the  new  Bishop, 
87 


88   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


whether  he  shall  be  equal  to  Bishop  Asbury,  or  subordi- 
nate to  him."    This  was  withdrawn  by  consent. 

A  motion  was  made  by  Roberts  "that  no  man  shall  be 
eligible  to  the  office  of  a  Bishop  who  has  not  traveled 
fifteen  years."  But  later  he  "obtained  leave  to  withdraw 
his  motion."  Another  was  made  by  Wise  "that  the  fifth 
section  of  the  Form  of  Discipline,  as  far  as  it  respects  the 
appointment  of  presiding  elders,  be  taken  up  and  con- 
sidered." 

Mansfield  moved  "that  the  Bishops  shall  have  full  and 
equal  jurisdiction  in  all  and  every  respect  whatsoever; 
that  each  and  every  Bishop  shall  attend  each  and  every 
Conference,  and  then  and  there  mutually  preside,  and 
station  the  preachers:  provided,  that  in  case  they  should 
unavoidably  be  prevented  from  all  attending,  the  Bishop 
or  Bishops  then  present  shall  be  competent  to  discharge 
the  duties  of  the  office  as  fully  and  effectually,  in  every 
respect,  as  if  they  were  all  present;  that  at  each  and  every 
Conference  the  Bishops  present  shall  mutually  determine 
and  agree  upon  their  several  different  routes  to  the  en- 
suing Conference."    This  motion  was  lost. 

On  a  day  previously  appointed,  Ormond's  motion  with 
reference  to  the  appointment  of  presiding  elders  was 
called  up,  and  voted  down. 

WHATCOAT  ELECTED 

On  Monday,  May  12,  the  Conference  voted  to  proceed  to 
the  election  of  a  Bishop.  The  ballot  was  a  tie,  and  was 
supposed  to  be  defective.  Upon  the  second  ballot,  the 
number  of  votes  being  115,  there  were  59  votes  for  Richard 
Whatcoat,  55  for  Jesse  Lee,  and  one  blank.  Whatcoat  was 
an  Englishman,  ordained  by  Wesley,  but  mild,  unobtru- 
sive, and  aged. 

The  Conference  evidently  feared  that  there  would  be 
trouble  if  any  other  elder  should  be  associated  with  As- 


THE  GENERAL,  CONFERENCES  OF  1800  AND  1804  89 


bury  in  the  General  Superintendency.  That  the  first 
ballot  was  a  tie,  and  that  a  change  of  three  votes  on  the 
second  would  have  elected  Lee  shows  his  high  standing 
and  influence. 

William  Phoebus  represents  that  Lee  was  defeated  be- 
cause he  had  "a  Presbyterian  idea  of  the  episcopacy" ;  but 
no  other  witness  affirms  this,  and  others  assign  different 
reasons.  Subsequent  events  also  render  probable  that 
Phoebus  unconsciously  allowed  his  owti  desires  to  suggest 
this  reason. 

The  record  of  this  Conference  shows  that  all  attempts 
to  limit  the  episcopacy  in  making  the  appointments  were 
either  withdrawn  or  voted  down,  and  that  all  efforts  to 
determine  and  define  the  relations  of  Bishops,  as  to 
whether  they  were  to  be  equal  to  Bishop  Asbury  or  sub- 
ordinate to  him,  were  also  voted  doAvn. 

1804 

This  General  Conference  began  with  much  discussion 
of  proposed  amendments  to  the  Rules  of  Order. 

The  eligibility  of  five  applicants  for  membership  was 
challenged  by  a  motion  of  McCaine  that  a  committee  be 
appointed  ''to  inquire  into  the  right  of  Knowlton,  Taylor, 
Ryan,  Jacob  Gruber,  and  Lyon  to  seats  in  this  Confer- 
ence." A  committee  of  seven  was  appointed,  including 
Lee,  Garrettson.  and  George  Pickering.  Lee  reported  for 
the  committee  that  they  "are  unanimous  in  their  opinion 
that  the  five  brethren  are  not  entitled  to  a  seat  in  this 
Conference."  It  was  then  "resolved  by  vote,  that  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  be  considered  by  Conference,  sepa- 
rately and  distinctly,  with  respect  to  the  several  persons 
objected  against."  The  next  record  is : 

Determined,  by  vote,  that  the  time  of  any  preacher's  traveling, 
under  the  direction  of  a  presiding  elder,  shall  not  be  reckoned  as 
part  of  his  probation,  which  shall  commence  from  the  time  of  his 
reception  by  Conference. 


90   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

It  was  then  referred  to  the  committee  with  power,  and 
at  the  next  session  Lee  reported  that  the  five  brethren 
"have  not  a  right  to  sit  in  this  Conference." 

Much  time  was  spent  in  revising  the  Discipline  section 
by  section.  In  view  of  what  followed,  this  was  one  of  the 
most  important  pieces  of  work  performed  by  any  Con- 
ference. The  results  were'  incorporated  in  the  Discipline, 
but  the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  omits  the  de- 
tails. 

The  proposition  to  make  local  deacons  eligible  to  or- 
dination as  elders  elicited  a  long  debate,  and  when  put  to 
vote  was  lost,  the  same  number  of  votes  (44)  being  cast 
for  and  against  the  motion. 

Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  took  an  active  part  in  the 
proceedings.  Coke  made  not  less  than  fourteen  motions, 
generally  showing  an  orderly  mind  and  an  excellent 
judgment;  Asbury  introduced  six  resolutions;  and  it  is 
significant  that  nearly  all  these  motions  made  by  the 
General  Superintendents  were  carried. 

Close  attention  was  given  to  slavery,  the  Book  Concern, 
and  the  Chartered  Fund. 

HEATED  DISCUSSIONS 

Every  relevant  question,  great  or  small,  seems  to  have 
been  debated  at  length,  and  there  are  evidences  that  there 
were  so  much  excitement  and  so  many  personalities  as  to 
make  the  Conference  ashamed  to  admit  spectators.  The 
only  reference  found,  in  the  Journal,  to  the  devout  and 
amiable  Bishop  Whatcoat  {except  his  signature  at  the 
end)  is  in  these  words:  "Bishop  Whatcoat  rose  to  recom- 
mend the  suppression  of  passion  or  ill  will  in  debate,  and 
that  reason  should  rule  in  every  loving  contest."  Imme- 
diately after  this  remark  by  Whatcoat  Asbury  moved  that 
"the  doors  he  closed,"  and  by  a  second  vote  they  were 
closed  "against  all  except  members  of  Conference."  Again 


THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCES  OF  1800  AND  1804  91 

it  was  voted  that  "all  the  official  members  of  our  Church" 
should  be  "admitted  as  spectators."  But  later  it  was 
voted  that  "wo  person  be  admitted  as  a  spectator,"  and 
after  this  the  doors  were  closed  against  all  but  local 
elders. 

Asbury's  references  to  this  Conference  are:  "There 
were  attempts  made  upon  the  ruling  eldership.  We  had  a 
great  talk.  I  talked  little  on  any  subject.  .  .  .  The  Lord 
did  not  own  the  ministerial  labors  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, it  was  a  doubt  if  any  souls  were  converted.  This 
made  us  mourn." 

Lee  laments:  "There  was  very  little  stir  of  religion 
among  us  during  the  sitting  of  the  Conference."  It  is 
remarkable  that  a  man,  of  so  democratic  a  spirit  in  most 
respects  should  assign  such  a  cause  as  this:  "One  prin- 
cipal reason  of  our  barrenness,  I  believe,  was  owing  to 
an  improper  plan  which  was  adopted  by  the  Conference 
in  the  beginning  of  their  business,  which  was  this:  to 
admit  men,  ivomen,  and  children  into  the  galleries  of  the 
meeting  house  to  hear  our  debates." 

This  confirms  the  conclusion  that  there  must  have  been 
much  ill  feeling,  and  many  exhibitions  of  it;  for  decorous 
debates  on  the  government  and  work  of  the  Church  can- 
not Impede  the  growth  of  genuine  religion. 

SALIENT  POINTS  OF  THE  DISCIPLINE 

At  this  Conference,  Ezekiel  Cooper,  then  everywhere 
recognized  as  one  of  the  statesmen  of  Methodism,  "moved 
an  alteration  in  the  twenty-third  Article  of  Religion,  viz., 
'Constitution  of  the  United  States'  for  'General  Act  of 
Confederation,'  and  'are  a  sovereign  and  independent  na- 
tion, and'  to  be  inserted  between  the  word  'States'  and 
'ought  not  to  be  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction.'  " 

Cooper  also  moved  the  insertion  of  this  question :  "Who 
shall  appoint  the  place  of  the  Annual  Conferences? 


92   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Answer:  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  appoint  the  place 
of  its  own  sitting" — which  was  carried. 

The  existence  and  powers  of  the  presiding  eldership 
were  discussed.  On  the  fourth  day  of  the  Conference 
"Thomas  Syell  moved  the  abolition  of  the  whole  fifth 
section,  concerning  presiding  elders.  This  was  afterward 
altered  by  the  mover  to  that  there  he  no  presiding  elders." 
In  the  proceedings  of  the  next  session,  the  Journal  is: 
"After  a  long  debate,  the  motion  'That  there  be  no  pre- 
siding elders'  was  lost."  • 

This  will  be  seen  to  have  a  weighty  bearing  on  future 
momentous  events. 

The  next  day  McCIaskey  moved  that  "no  presiding 
elder  shall  have  power  to  remove  the  preacher  who  has  the 
charge  of  the  circuit  or  station,  ivithout  his  consent."  The 
motion  was  lost. 

The  Conference  of  1804  is  also  celebrated  for  the  rule 
forbidding  the  Bishops  to  allow  any  preacher  to  remain 
in  the  same  station  or  circuit  more  than  two  years  suc- 
cessively, except  the  presiding  elders,  etc. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


Growing  Demand  for  Equitable  Methods  op 
Legislation 

Dissatisfaction  with  the  composition  of  the  General 
Conference  had  been  for  years  manifestly  increasing.  It 
arose  from  several  radical  defects;  one  of  these  was  that 
preachers  of  little  experience,  most  dei^endent  on  leaders, 
and  obsequious  to  authority,  and  often  of  the  least  ability, 
were  equally  eligible  to  seats  and  votes  with  those  of  in- 
dependent opinions  and  thorough  familiarity  Avith  the 
rules  and  needs  of  the  Church.  Another  was  the  ine- 
quality of  the  representation  of  Conferences  near  to  or  re- 
mote from  the  place  of  meeting. 

A  plan  to  remove  the  first  difficulty  went  into  effect 
for  the  first  time,  in  the  General  Conference  of  1804. 
Prior  to  this  all  preachers  who  had  traveled  tivo  years 
were  eligible  to  membership,  but  by  a  rule  made  in  1800, 
"only  preachers  of  four  years'  standing  in  the  Annual 
Conferences"  could  be  admitted  to  seats.  Hence,  though 
the  number  present  in  1804  was  less  than  before,  Lee  says, 
"We  considered  it  of  greater  weight  because  of  their  age 
in  the  ministry." 

unbearable  inequality 

The  second  difficulty  was  even  more  irritating.  The 
Conference  of  1804  was  held  in  Baltimore,  and  thirty  of 
the  members  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  were  present, 
and  of  the  Philadelphia  thirty-seven  appeared;  from  the 
large  Conference  of  Virginia  there  were  but  seventeen ; 
from  New  Yoi'k  but  twelve;  from  South  Carolina  only 
five  came;  from  the  New  England  but  four;  while  from 
93 


94   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

the  great  and  growing  Western  Conference  a  meager  con- 
tingent of  three  reported.  In  that  early  period  neither 
steamboats  nor  railways  diminished  hardships  nor  speeded 
the  traveler  on  his  way. 

Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  together  had  a  majority  of 
thirteen  in  the  body,  and  lacked  but  five  of  having  two 
thirds.  Lee  remarks:  "We  saw  the  necessity  of  making 
an  alteration  in  that  point;  but,  after  all,  we  let  it  re- 
main as  it  was." 

There  were  several  additional  vexatious  elements  in  the 
situation.  The  central  Conferences  had  had  the  oppor- 
tunity of  unifying  sentiment,  and  great  power  had  been 
exerted  by  the  two  largest  Conferences,  particularly  by 
the  Baltimore.  When  the  General  Conference  assembled, 
the  members  from  distant  points  found  the  business  ma- 
tured and  a  majority  committed  on  almost  every  question. 

The  Virginia  Conference,  consisting  of  men  of  force — 
not  a  little  jealous  of  the  central  Conferences  and  of  the 
influence  of  the  Bishops  through  them,  and  remembering 
the  early  sacramental  controversy — stood  to  some  extent 
between  the  remote  and  central  section,  and  a  considerable 
number  in  all  Conferences  were  ready  to  join  them  or  the 
majority  according  to  their  convictions  or  interests. 

STEPS  LEADING  TO  A  DELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE 

So  far  as  can  be  ascertained  from  contemporaneous 
documents  and  tradition,  the  steps  which  led  to  the  for- 
mation of  a  delegated  General  Conference  are  as  follows; 
Asbury  records  in  his  Journal:  "This  day  brother  Jesse 
Lee  put  a  paper  into  my  hand,  proposing  the  election  of 
not  less  than  two,  nor  more  than  four,  preachers  from 
each  Conference,  to  form  a  General  Conference  in  Balti- 
more, in  December,  1792,  to  be  continued  annually."^ 
This  testimony  gives  Lee  a  foremost  place  in  American 

•Vol.  ii.  p.  128.  July  7.  1791. 


EQUITABLE  METHODS  OF  LEGLISLATION  95 

Methodism  as  a  farseeing  and  sagacious  man,  the  de- 
nouncer and  destroyer  of  the  aristocratic  council,  and 
the  early  perceiver  that  a  delegated  Conference,  and  that 
only,  would  provide  for  permanent,  consistent,  and  satis- 
factory legislation. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1800,  on  May  8,  James 
Folleson  moved  that. 

Whereas,  Much  time  has  been  lost,  and  will  always  be  lost  in 
the  event  of  a  General  Conference  being  continued;  and, 

Whereas,  The  circuits  are  left  without  preachers  for  one,  two, 
or  three  months,  and  other  great  inconveniences  attend  so  many 
of  the  preachers  leaving  their  work,  and  no  real  advantage  arises 
therefrom, 

Resolved,  That  instead  of  a  General  Conference  we  substitute 
a  delegated  one. 

This  motion  was  called  up  on  May  15  and  lost  by  a 
great  majority.  This  resolution  with  the  preamble  was 
in  terms  so  clear,  concise,  and  conclusive,  that  it  should 
have  convinced  the  body  and  secured  its  purpose;  but 
other  experiments,  some  of  them  impracticable,  were  yet 
to  be  tried  before  the  one  rational  and  equalizing  method 
could  be  enacted  and  put  in  operation. 

In  the  Baltimore  Conference,  held  in  March,  1806,  "it 
was  recommended  to  the  Annual  Conferences  to  consider 
on  the  propriety  of  having  a  select,  delegated  Conference : 
the  Eastern,  Western,  and  Southern  Conferences  were 
counseled  to  take  such  measures  as  they,  in  their  wisdom, 
might  see  best,  to  produce  a  more  equal  representation 
from  their  several  bodies  to  the  General  Conference."^ 

A  PECULIAR  SCHEME 

The  New  York  Conference  assembled  May  16,  1806. 
Bishop  Whatcoat  was  rapidly  approaching  the  end  of 
his  laborious  life.  Coke  was  in  Europe,  and  the  entire 


^Aahury'a  Journal,  vol.  iii,  pp.  217,  218. 


96   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

burden  of  the  Superintendency  was  about  to  fall  upon 
Asbury,  far  advanced  in  years.  Aslury's  Journal  notes : 

A  paper  was  read,  setting  forth  the  uncertain  state  of  the 
Superintendency,  and  proposing  the  election  of  seven  elders, 
from  each  of  the  seven  Conferences,  to  meet  at  Baltimore,  July 
4,  1807,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  establishing  the  American  Su- 
perintendency on  a  sure  foundation:  this  subject  will  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  consideration  of  all  the  Conferences.* 

Bangs  says  that  they  were  to  have  "power  to  elect  one 
Bishop  or  more,  and  also  to  provide  for  a  future  delegated 
General  Conference,  whose  powers  should  be  defined  and 
limited  by  constitutional  restrictions."^  Bangs  was  a 
member  of  the  New  York  Conference ;  but  he  did  not  pub- 
lish his  history  of  Methodism  for  more  than  thirty  years 
after  these  events.  It  is  probable  that  he  recalled  some 
of  the  remarks  made  in  debate  and  considered  them  a 
part  of  the  "plan."  But  Bishop  Paine,  the  friend  and 
biographer  of  Bishop  McKendree,  states^  that  he  pos- 
sessed the  original  document  as  issued  by  the  New  York 
Conference,  and  that  it  provided  that  the  electors  should 
assemble  in  Baltimore  "with  full  powers  to  elect,  organize, 
and  establish  a  permanent  Superintendency,  and  for  no 
other  purpose."  To  the  original  document  were  attached 
the  following  statements: 

The  New  England  Conference  concurs  with  the  proposal  made 
by  the  New  York  Conference,  for  calling  a  delegated  General 
Conference  on  July  4,  1807,  for  the  express  purpose  of  strengthen- 
ing the  Superintendency.    Yeas,  28;  nays,  15. 

Tho.  Branch,  Sec'y. 

The  Western  Conference  concurs  with  the  proposal  made  by 
the.  .  .  .    Unanimity.  Wm.  Burke,  Sec'y. 

The  South  Carolina  Conference  concurs.  .  .  .  Two  members 
only  excepted.  Lewis  Myers,  Sec'y. 


■Vol.  iii.  p.  224. 

^History  of  the  Methodist  Episopal  Church,  vol.  ii,  p.  177. 
'Life  and  Times  of  Bishop  McKendree,  vol.  i,  p.  185. 


EQUITABLE  METHODS  OP  LEGLISLATION  97 


AN  EFFECTUAL  BLOCKADE 

Virginia  Conference,  Newbern,  Feb.  6,  1807. — The  New 
York  Conference  having  written  a  circular  letter  to  the  several 
Annual  Conferences,  proposing  a  plan  to  strengthen  the  Superin- 
tendency,  the  letter  was  read  in  this  Conference  yesterday,  and  a 
vote  taken — "Shall  we  consider  the  subject?"  Only  seven  were 
in  favor  of  the  motion.  The  subject  was  called  up  again  to-day, 
and  a  second  vote  was  taken:  fourteen  were  in  favor  of  it.  It  is 
therefore  the  decision  of  Conference  not  to  be  concerned  in  it. 
Signed  in  and  by  order  of  the  Conference. 

P.  Bruce, 

Jesse  Lee, 

Thomas  L.  Douglass,  Se&y. 
There  were  34  memhers  at  the  Conference;  33  were  present 
when  the  vote  was  taken,  and  the  absent  member  said  he  would 
have  voted  for  it  if  he  had  been  in  the  room. 

Thos.  L.  Douglass,  Sec'y. 

A  paper  is  also  extant,  dated  "Newbern,  North  Caro- 
lina, February  8,  1807,  expressing  the  dissent  of  Philip 
Bruce,  Stith  Mead,  Thomas  L.  Douglass,  and  John  Buxton 
to  the  action  of  the  Virginia  Conference  in  refusing  to 
take  into  consideration  the  circular  of  the  New  York  Con- 
ference." Thej  inotested  on  the  ground  that  it  was  in- 
judicious and  impolitic  to  refuse  hearing  a  debate  on 
anything  of  such  importance.  They  then  attempt  to  ex- 
plain the  course  pursued  by  the  Conference  by  attributing 
it  "to  the  state  of  our  Conference,  being  composed  of  more 
than  one  third  young  men,  and  the  vehement  outcries  of 
'Rebellion' — 'Worse  than  Burr' — 'Of  foreswearing' — 'Di- 
viding the  connection' !  etc.,  raised  by  two  of  our  elder 
brethren  (J.  Lee  and  D.  Hall),  which  so  alarmed  the 
young  men  that  they  were  afraid  to  hear  or  see  the  letters, 
or  submit  to  the  debate  upon  the  address  from  New  York." 

This  is  a  singular  method  of  discrediting  an  action.  It 
implies  that  nearly  two  thirds  were  not  young  men,  and 
they  must  have  been  in  a  strange  state  of  mind  if  they 
could  be  overawed  by  cries  of  that  kind. 


98   CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Lee  had  extraordinary  gifts  as  an  orator.  He  opposed 
the  plan  on  the  ground,  that  it  was  an  unwarrantable 
measure  "to  meet  a  contingency  which  did  not  occur  be- 
fore the  meeting  of  the  body  which  had  the  legal  control 
of  the  question,  and  might  have  been  a  dangerous  prece- 
dent." Bishop  Paine  justly  says:  "And  it  may  well  be 
feared  that  if  this  evident  necessity  for  General  Con- 
ference action  had  been  anticipated  in  1807,  the  attempt 
to  introduce  the  representative  principle  in  1808,  and  to 
impose  a  constitutional  check  both  upon  the  Annual  and 
General  Conferences,  might  not  have  been  successful." 

lee's  position 

Lee  is  entitled  to  be  heard  for  himself.  He  disposes  of 
the  question  in  his  usual  sententious  manner:  "In  the 
course  of  the  year  1806  there  was  a  plan  laid  which  would 
have  overset  and  destroyed  the  rules  and  regulations  of 
the  Methodists,  respecting  the  election  and  ordination  of 
Bishops.  It  was  said  that  the  plan  originated  in  the  New 
York  Conference,  which  was  as  follows."^ 

Here  he  gives  an  account  of  the  plan,  and  says  that  it 
was  adopted  by  four  of  the  Conferences,  who  had  taken 
for  granted  that  it  would  succeed,  and  delegates  were 
chosen.  He  accounts  for  the  refusal  to  take  it  under  con- 
sideration by  its  "being  pointedly  in  opposition  to  all  the 
rules  of  our  Church.  The  Bishop  labored  hard  to  carry 
the  point,  but  in  vain :  and  the  whole  business  of  that 
dangerous  plan  was  overset  by  the  Virginia  Conference. 
The  inventors  and  defenders  of  that  project  might  have 
meant  well ;  but  they  certainly  erred  in  judgment." 

As  it  was  understood  that  unless  all  the  Conferences 
concurred  in  the  expediency  of  this  measure,  no  attempts 
should  be  made  to  carry  it  into  effect,  the  refusal  of  the 


^History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  344. 


EQUITABLE  METHODS  OF  LEGLISLATION  99 


Virginia  Conference  to  consider  it  was  a  deathblow  to  the 
enterprise. 

PROMPT  ACTION  OP  NEW  YORK  CONFERENCE 

This  scheme  having  failed,  to  the  humiliation  of  the 
New  York  Conference,  in  which  it  took  shape,  and,  ac- 
cording to  Bangs,  to  "the  great  grief"'  of  Asbiuy,  that 
Conference,  with  its  characteristic  energy,  and  with 
praiseworthy  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  entire 
Church,  sent  out,  in  less  than  three  months  after  the  over- 
throw of  its  previous  plan,  a  unanimously  adopted  and 
signed  memorial  to  the  Conferences,  expressing  its  thor- 
ough conviction  that  "a  representative  or  delegated  Gen- 
eral Conference,  composed  of  a  si)eciflc  number,  on  prin- 
ciples of  equal  representation,  from  the  several  Annual 
Conferences,  would  be  much  more  conducive  to  the  pros- 
perity and  general  unity  of  the  whole  body,  than  the 
present  indefinite  and  numerous  body  of  ministers,  col- 
lected together  unequally  from  the  various  Conferences, 
to  the  great  inconvenience  of  the  ministry  and  injury  of 
the  work  of  God." 

They  invited  the  brethren  of  the  several  Annual  Con- 
ferences, which  were  to  sit  between  them  and  the  General 
Conference,  to  join  and  unite  with  them  "in  the  subject 
matter  of  this  memorial."  This  was  adopted  without  a 
dissenting  vote  in  the  New  York  Conference,  and  sent  out 
to  the  other  Conferences  under  the  date  May  7,  1807.  In 
the  interval  between  that  and  the  time  fixed  for  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1808  it  was  submitted  to  the  New 
England,  Ohio,  and  South  Carolina  Conferences,  and  con- 
curred in  by  them.  The  ministry  of  the  Church  were  re- 
quested that  "as  full  a  representation  as  practicable 
should  attend  the  session  of  the  General  Conference,  that 
a  full  expression  of  the  voice  of  the  several  Annual  Con- 
ferences should  be  heard  in  regard  to  the  measure." 


100  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

It  was  under  these  circumstances,  and  with  this  weighty 
project  before  them,  that  the  members  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1808  convened  in  Baltimore,  already  be- 
come the  historic  center  of  American  Methodist  eccle- 
siastical organization,  and  destined  now  to  see  perfected 
the  work  begun  in  the  convention  which,  in  1784,  gave  to 
the  world  a  new  and  independent  Church. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


The  Last  Nondelegated  General  Conference 

Sad  indeed  was  the  situation  when  on  May  1,  1808,  the 
General  Conference  assembled.  Bishop  Whatcoat  had 
finished  his  course,  Dr.  Coke  was  in  Europe,  and  upon 
Asbury,  wayworn  and  weary,  rested  the  weight  of  the 
entire  denomination,  and  the  sole  responsibility  of  pre- 
siding over  the  Conference.  The  times  were  out  of  joint; 
dissatisfaction  and  a  seuse  of  uncertainty  were  rife.  All 
expected  that  important  changes  would  be  made;  but 
none  could  forecast  the  temper  in  which  they  would  be 
attempted,  the  length  of  the  deliberations,  or  the  char- 
acter of  the  debates  necessary  for  their  elucidation  and 
adoption. 

Twenty-four  years  had  passed  since  the  INIethodist  Epis- 
copal Church  was  organized — a  period  suilicient  to 
develop  orators,  wise  men,  parliamentarians,  and  masterly 
leaders. 

great  leaders 

From  the  New  York  Conference  came  nineteen  mem- 
bers; among  them  Freeborn  Garrettson,  Ezekiel  Cooper, 
and  Nathan  Bangs.  The  New  England  was  represented 
by  seven  members,  the  greatest  in  influence,  then  and 
afterward,  being  George  Pickering,  Joshua  Soule,  and 
Elijah  Hedding;  of  the  Western  Conference  there  were 
eleven,  all  forceful  and  fervent,  the  most  notable  being 
William  McKendree.  South  Carolina  also  sent  eleven, 
useful,  and  most  of  them  locally  honored ;  but  not  con- 
spicuous in  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference.  There 
were  eighteen  delegates  from  Virginia,  two  of  whom  can 
never  pass  from  remembrance  while  Methodists  read  the 
101 


102  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

history  of  their  own  communion — Philip  Bruce  and  Jesse 
Lee.  When  the  roll  was  called,  thirty-one  members  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference  responded,  among  them  Stephen  G. 
Roszel,  Nelson  Reed,  Asa  Shinn,  Enoch  George,  and 
Robert  R.  Roberts.  Only  one  Conference  exceeded  that 
number,  the  Philadelphia,  which  had  thirty-two.  Here 
also  were  remarkable  men — Thomas  Ware,  John  Mc- 
Claskey,  Henry  Boehm  (who  lived  more  than  a  century, 
and  was  an  encyclopaedia  of  early  Methodist  facts  and 
traditions),  and  William  P.  Chandler,  the  last  named 
being  chosen  secretary  of  the  General  Conference. 

The  appointments  of  all  these  (except  Cooper,  who  had 
been  elected  editor  and  General  Book  Steward)  were 
absolutely  dependent  upon  the  will  of  Asbury. 

The  Conference  being  ready  for  business,  Asbury  moved, 
and  it  was  determined,  that  a  Committee  of  Review  and 
Inspection  be  appointed  consisting  of  seven  members, 
"one  to  be  taken  from  each  Annual  Conference  by  the 
members  present  from  each  Conference  respectively."  To 
this  committee  were  referred  various  questions  of  im- 
portance. Those  chosen  were  Samuel  Coate,  of  the  New 
York  Conference;  Martin  Ruter,  of  the  New  England; 
William  McKendree,  of  the  Western;  James  H.  Mellard, 
of  the  South  Carolina ;  Jesse  Lee,  of  the  Virginia ;  Nelson 
Reed,  of  the  Baltimore;  and  Thomas  Ware,  of  the  Phila- 
delphia. There  was  also  a  Conunittee  of  Three  on  Corre- 
spondence. 

On  the  afternoon  of  Monday,  May  9,  the  most  important 
measure,  since  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  1784, 
was  launched  upon  an  ocean  of  discussion.  It  was  thus 
introduced : 

Brother  William  Phoebus  moved,  and  was  seconded  by  Brother 
Daniel  Hall,  that  the  Conference  now  go  Into  the  business  rela- 
tive to  regulating  and  perpetuating  General  Conferences  in 
future.    The  subject  to  be  taken  up  to-morrow  morning. 


LAST  NONDELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  103 


MEMORIAL  FROM  NEW  YORK  CONFERENCE 

The  memorial,  a  part  of  which  was  necessarily  incor- 
porated in  the  preyious  chapter,  now  sent  to  the  General 
Conference  by  the  New  York  Conference,  was  read. 
After  an  introduction  describing  the  rapid  growth  and 
wide  distribution  of  the  denomination,  the  memorial  thus 
proceeds : 

When  we  take  a  serious  and  impartial  view  of  this  important 
subject,  and  consider  the  extent  of  our  connection,  the  number 
of  our  preachers,  the  great  inconvenience,  expense,  and  loss 
of  time  that  must  necessarily  result  from  our  present  regula- 
tions, relative  to  our  General  Conference,  we  are  deeply  im- 
pressed with  a  thorough  conviction  that  a  representative  or 
delegated  General  Conference,  composed  of  a  specific  number 
on  principles  of  equal  representation  from  the  several  Annual 
Conferences,  would  be  much  more  conducive  to  the  prosperity 
and  general  unity  of  the  whole  body  than  the  present  indefinite 
and  numerous  body  of  ministers,  collected  together  unequally 
from  the  various  Conferences,  to  the  great  Inconvenience  of  the 
ministry,  and  injury  of  the  work  of  God.  We  therefore  present 
unto  you  this  memorial,  requesting  that  you  will  adopt  the 
principle  of  an  equal  representation  from  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, to  form,  in  future,  a  delegated  General  Conference,  and 
that  you  will  establish  such  rules  and  regulations  as  are  neces- 
sary to  carry  the  same  into  effect.^ 

INDORSEMENTS 

This  was  signed  by  the  respective  secretaries  of  three 
Conferences : 

The  Eastern  Conference  unanimously  voted  to  concur  with 
the  New  York  Conference  in  the  subject  matter  of  the  above 
memorial.  Thomas  Bbanch,  Secretary. 

Boston  Conference,  June  3,  1807. 

The  Western  Conference  unanimously  voted  to  concur  with 
the  New  York  Conference  in  the  subject  matter  of  the  above 
memorial.  William  Bubke,  Secretary. 

Chillicothe,  O.,  September  16,  1807. 


^Journal,  1808.  p.  77. 


104  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


The  South  Carolina  Conference,  with  the  exception  of  five 
members,  concur  with  the  New  York  Conference  in  the  above 
memorial.  Lewis  Myeks,  Secretary. 

January  2,  1808. 

From  the  absence  of  certificates  from  the  Baltimore, 
Philadelphia,  and  Virginia  Conferences  it  is  inferred  that 
they  did  not  concur,  though  L.  M.  Lee  declares  that  it 
was  brought  before  the  Virginia  Conference  of  1808,  and 
adopted  with  great  unanimity,  and  that  "it  is  believed 
that  all  the  Conferences  adopted  this  memorial."  Tigert 
holds  that  this  is  clearly  wrong,  "as  it  is  not  credible 
that  when  the  memorial  was  read  in  General  Conference, 
with  the  official  certificates  of  the  concurrence  of  the  New 
England,  AVestern,  and  South  Carolina  Conferences  at- 
tached, the  delegates  of  the  other  three  Conferences  should 
have  failed  to  inquire  why  ;.he  ofiicial  indorsement  of  their 
own  bodies  was  omitted." 

It  is  barely  possible  that  while  the  three  Conferences 
had  not  formally  voted,  the  members  present — a  very  large 
number — might  have  expressed  a  general  approval.  This 
would  account  for  the  absence  of  certificates,  and  also 
for  the  tradition  that  all  the  Conferences  agreed;  but  as 
the  memorial  was  probably  laid  before  those  Conferences 
at  their  sessions  in  1808,  and  as  no  reference  to  their 
sentiments  is  made  in  the  Journal  in  connection  with 
later  events,  they  may  have  concluded  to  await  develop- 
ments. 

The  next  morning,  "Bishop  Asbury  having  called  for 
the  mind  of  the  Conference,  whether  any  further  regula- 
tion in  the  order  of  the  General  Conference  be  necessary, 
the  question  was  put,  and  carried  in  the  aflflrmative." 

COMMITTEE  TO  FRAME  REGULATIONS 

It  was  moved  by  Stephen  G.  Roszel  and  seconded  by 
William  Burke  that  "a  committee  be  appointed  to  draw 


LAST  NONDELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  105 

up  such  regulations  as  they  may  think  best,  .  .  .  and  re- 
port the  same  to  the  Conference."  The  motion  prevailed, 
as  also  did  a  resolution  moved  by  Bishop  Asbury,  "that 
the  committee  be  formed  from  an  equal  number  from  each 
of  the  Annual  Conferences."  Another  that  there  should 
"be  Uvo  from  each  Conference  to  be  chosen  by  their  re- 
spective Conferences"  was  carried.  The  following  were 
elected : 

From  the  New  York:  Ezekiel  Cooper,  John  Wilson. 

From  the  New  England:  George  Pickering,  Joshua  Soule. 

From  the  Western:  William  McKendree,  William  Burke. 

From  the  South  Carolina:  William  Phoebus,  Josias  Randle. 

From  the  Virginia:  Philip  Bruce,  Jesse  Lee. 

From  the  Baltimore:  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  Nelson  Reed. 

From  the  Philadelphia:  John  McClaskey,  Thomas  Ware. 

After  the  committee  was  organized  it  appointed  a  sub- 
committee consisting  of  Cooper,  Soule,  and  Bruce  to  draft 
a  report  to  be  submitted  later  for  approval,  alteration, 
or  rejection.  It  was  agreed  that  each  of  the  three  should 
prepare  a  scheme  to  be  considered  at  the  next  meeting  of 
the  subcommittee.  Cooper  and  Soule  appeared  with 
papers,  but  Bruce  had  committed  nothing  to  writing. 
Cooper  and  Soule  read  their  plans,  and  Bruce  agreed  with 
the  main  points  presented  by  Soule,  Cooper  in  the  end 
concurring. 

The  whole  committee  was  then  called  together;  both 
plans  were  put  before  it,  and  after  a  few  minor  changes 
suggested  by  others  had  been  made,  the  system  of  Soule 
was  adopted. 

COMMITTER  PRESENTS  PLAN 

At  the  morning  session  of  the  General  Conference  on 
Monday,  May  16,  the  report  of  the  committee  "relative  to 
regulating  and  perpetuating  General  Conferences"  was 
presented  and  read.    It  was  as  follows : 

Whereas,  It  Is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  the  doctrines. 


106  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

form  of  government,  and  general  rules  of  the  United  States 
societies  in  America  be  preserved  sacred  and  inviolable;  and, 

Whereas,  Every  prudent  measure  should  be  taken  to  pre- 
serve, strengthen,  and  perpetuate  the  union  of  the  connection; 

Therefore,  your  committee,  upon  the  maturest  deliberation, 
have  thought  it  advisable  that  the  third  section  of  the  Form  of 
Discipline  shall  be  as  follows,  viz.: 

Section  III. — Of  the  General  Conference 
1st.    The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  delegates 
from  the  Annual  Conferences. 

2d.  The  delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  ballot,  without  debate, 
in  the  Annual  Conferences  respectively,  in  the  last  meeting  of 
the  Conference  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence. 

3d.  Each  Annual  Conference  respectively  shall  have  a  right 
to  send  seven  elders,  members  of  their  Conference,  as  delegates 
to  the  General  Conference. 

4th.  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  have  a  right  to  send  one 
delegate,  in  addition  to  the  seven,  for  every  ten  members  be- 
longing to  such  Conference  over  and  above  fifty:  so  that  if  there 
be  sixty  members,  they  shall  send  eight;  if  seventy,  they  shall 
send  nine;  and  so  on  in  proportion. 

5th.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of 
May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  eighteen  hundred  and  twelve;  and 
thenceforward  on  the  first  day  of  May  once  in  four  years  per- 
petually, at  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the 
General  Conference  from  time  to  time. 

6th.  At  all  times,  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it 
shall  take  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  delegates  to  form 
a  quorum. 

7th.  One  of  the  original  Superintendents  shall  preside  in  the 
General  Conference;  but  in  case  no  General  Superintendent  be 
present,  the  General  Conference  shall  choose  a  president  pro  tern. 

8th.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make 
rules,  regulations,  and  canons  for  our  Church,  under  the  follow- 
ing limitations  and  restrictions,  viz.: 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change 
our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  of 
doctrine. 

They  shall  not  lessen  the  number  of  seven  delegates  from  each 
Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  greater  number  from  any 


LAST  XONDELEOxATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  107 

Annual  Conference  than  is  provided  in  the  fourth  paragraph  of 
this  section. 

They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  gov- 
ernment, so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  or  to  destroy  the  plan 
of  our  itinerant  General  Superintendency. 

They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  general  rules  of  the 
united  societies. 

They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or 
preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal;  neither 
shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members,  of  trial  before 
the  society,  or  by  a  committee  of  an  appeal. 

They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern 
or  of  the  Charter  Fund  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit 
of  the  traveling,  superannuated,  supernumerary,  and  worn-out 
preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 

Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation 
of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of 
the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of 
the  above  restrictions. 

DISCUSSION 

Immediately  on  its  presentation  the  Conference  voted 
to  proceed  to  a  discussion  of  tlie  subject.  According  to 
Bangs,  it  was  debated  for  a  full  day,  when  Cooper, 
seconded  by  Wells,  moved  ''to  postpone  the  present  ques- 
tion to  make  room  for  the  consideration  of  a  new  resolu- 
tion, as  preparatory  to  the  minds  of  the  brethren  to  de- 
termine on  the  present  subject."  This  being  carried, 
the  same  persons  moved  : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  fifth  section  of  Discipline,  after  the 
Question,  "By  whom  shall  the  presiding  elders  be  chosen?"  the 
answer  shall  be — "Answer  1st.  Each  Annual  Conference  respec- 
tively, without  debate,  shall  annually  choose,  by  ballot,  its  own 
presiding  elders." 

This  debate  was  continued,  on  the  next  day,  when  an 
attempt  was  made  by  Soule  and  seconded  by  Oliver  Beale 
to  tenninate  the  discussion  and  take  the  vote.  The  mo- 
tion was  lost:  nays,  61;  ayes,  5.S.  On  the  afternoon  of 
the  same  day  it  was  moved  by  Samuel  Draper,  of  New 


108  CONSTITUTIONAL,  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

York,  seconded  by  Elijah  Hedding,  of  New  England,  that 
"the  vote  be  taken  immediately,"  but  it  did  not  prevail. 
Later  a  similar  motion  was  made  by  Thomas  Sargeant, 
of  Baltimore,  and  seconded  by  James  Smith,  of  the  same 
Conference,  and  nearly  prevailed,  the  nays  being  59  and 
the  ayes  5G.  To  bring  the  question  to  a  vote,  another 
attempt  was  made  by  Soule  and  Pickering,  but  it  was  de- 
feated by  so  large  a  majority  that  no  count  was  taken. 

THE  TWO  MOTIONS  LOST 

There  were  late  evening  and  early  morning  conversa- 
tions, and  when  the  Conference  convened  an  attempt  was 
made  by  Sargeant  and  seconded  by  Francis  Ward  to  eject 
the  motion  from  the  Conference  by  moving  that  "the 
motion  for  electing  presiding  elders  be  postponed  until  the 
fifteenth  of  August  next."  It  did  not  carry,  and  debate 
was  resumed.  Finally  Elijah  R.  Sabin,  of  New  England, 
moved,  and  Soule  seconded,  that  "the  vote  be  taken  with- 
out further  debate."  And  it  was  carried.  Immediately 
Garrettson,  of  New  York,  moved  and  Robert  Sparks,  of 
Philadelphia,  seconded,  that  "this  vote  be  taken  by  ballot." 
The  vote  being  taken  on  the  resolution  for  electing  pre- 
siding elders,  it  was  lost,  the  ayes  being  52  and  the  nays 
73.  On  the  same  day  it  was  moved  by  McClaskey,  and 
seconded  by  Daniel  Ostrander,  of  New  York,  that  "the 
vote  on  the  first  resolution  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
of  fourteen  (on  regulating  General  Conferences,  etc.)  be 
taken  by  ballot."  The  motion  was  carried.  The  first 
resolution  was  as  follows:  "The  General  Conference  shall 
be  composed  of  delegates  from  the  Annual  Conferences." 
It  was  lost;  ayes,  57 ;  nays,  64. 

DEFEAT  CAUSES  GREAT  PERPLEXITY 

This  result  produced  consternation,  those  defeated  be- 
ing on  the  verge  of  desperation,  and  the  victorious  shrink- 


LAST  NONDELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  109 


ing  from  the  possible,  and  even  probable  consequences, 
for  this  was  equivalent  to  a  rejection  of  the  entire  report, 
and  left  future  General  Conferences  to  be  formed  by  the 
original,  outworn,  and  odious  method  which  assumed 
that  all  ministers  of  the  legally  qualified  class  were  to 
assemble.  In  the  manuscript  Journal  (which  was  the 
basis  of  Stevens's  Life  of  Bangs)  Bangs  writes: 

I  suppose  some  voted  against  it  from  a  fear  that,  if  adopted, 
they  could  never  attend  another  General  Conference;  and  others 
were  jealous  of  their  rights,  fearing  to  intrust  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  to  so  few  hands;  while  some  opposed  it  from  opposition 
to  Bishop  Asbury,  with  whom  it  was  a  favorite  measure,  for, 
notwithstanding  his  great  merits,  he  had  his  enemies.* 

Jesse  Lee,  who  had  formerly  been  in  favor  of  a  delegated 
General  Conference,  was  opposed  to  this  report.  Bishop 
Paine  says  that  "Mr.  Lee  is  understood  to  have  opposed 
the  whole  thing  upon  the  plea  of  Conference  rights,  lead- 
ing to  electioneering,"  etc.  Probably  no  speaker  had  a 
greater  influence  on  the  floor  of  the  Conference  than  Lee. 
The  Rev.  John  Kobler,  a  member  of  the  Conference,  says 
of  him  that  '"he  was  a  man  of  great  penetration  and  could 
see  through  circumstances  and  read  men  well.  He  was 
the  best  speaker  in  the  Conference."- 

FOR  A  TIME  DESPAIR 

The  defeat  of  the  plan  for  a  delegated  General  Confer- 
ence boded  no  good  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Many  of  the  preachers  from  remote  Conferences  began 
preparations  to  return  home,  and  Bishop  Hedding  states 
that,  had  they  left  at  this  crisis,  it  would  probably  have 
been  the  last  General  Conference  ever  held.  Bishop  Clai'k 
says  of  Hedding  that  "all  the  members  from  the  New  Eng- 
land Conference,  except  himself  [Hedding],  were  making 
arrangements  to  depart.    In  this  emergency  he  entreated 

^Life  and  Times  of  Nathan  Bangs.  P-  171. 

^Life  and  Times  of  Jesse  Lee.  by  Dr.  Le  Roy  M.  Lee.  pp.  327,  328. 


110  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


them  to  reuiain,  and  declared  his  own  determination  to 
remain  until  the  close  of  the  Conference,  whatever  might 
happen."^ 

Bishop  Asbury  also  appealed  to  them,  and  to  members 
of  the  other  Conferences,  who  were  about  to  leave.  The 
delegates  from  the  central  Conferences,  who  had  largely 
voted  against  the  report  of  the  committee,  now  saw  that 
something  must  be  done. 

RECONCILIATION  AND  AGREEMENT  REACHED 

Much  consultation  ensued,  the  warring  elements  were 
reconciled,  and  on  Monday,  May  23,  it  was  moved  by 
Philip  Bruce,  of  Virginia  Conference,  and  seconded  by 
Thomas  Branch,  of  New  York,  that  "the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Review  lie  on  the  table  until  we  determine 
when  and  where  the  next  General  Conference  shall  be 
held."  This  being  carried,  Leonard  Cassel  moved,  and 
Roszel  seconded,  that  the  motion  for  "considering  when 
and  where  the  next  Conference  shall  be"  should  lie  over 
until  "it  be  determined  who  shall  compose  the  General 
Conference."   This  prevailed. 

Enoch  George  then  moved,  and  Roszel  (both  of  Balti- 
more) seconded,  "that  the  General  Conference  shall  be 
composed  of  one  member  for  every  five  members  of  each 
Annual  Conference."  The  Journal  entry  is,  "Carried  by 
a  very  large  majority."  Soule,  seconded  by  Pickering, 
moved  "that  each  Annual  Conference  should  have  the 
power  of  sending  their  proportionate  number  of  members 
to  the  General  Conference,  either  by  seniority  or  choice, 
as  they  shall  think  best."  This  motion  was  not  voted 
upon  until  the  afternoon  session.  The  introduction  of  the 
phrase  "or  seniority"  disarmed  Lee,  who  had  been  afraid 
of  "electioneering,"  etc.  The  scene  is  graphically  de- 
scribed in  Lee's  Life  of  Jesse  Lee: 

iLife  and  Times  of  Elijah  Hedding,  by  D.  W.  Clark,  p.  173. 


LAST  NONDELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  111 


Lee  was  a  powerful  advocate  of  independent  rights  of  Con- 
ferences, also  of  this  condition  of  seniority.  By  means  of  Soule's 
amendment  the  independence  of  the  Conference  was  maintained, 
and  to  the  custody  of  that  independence  was  committed  the  very 
condition  he  defended  as  the  proper  basis  of  representation. 

Lee  said  "that  though  he  felt  that  he  had  lost  a  victory, 
he  submitted."  He  walked  up  to  his  friend  and  whis- 
pered, "Brother  Soule,  you  have  played  me  a  Yankee 
trick 

Roszel  moved  that  the  next  General  Conference  be  held 
on  May  1,  1812.  This  was  carried,  as  was  the  motion  that 
it  be  held  in  New  York.  This  prevailed  by  a  majority  of 
eight.  The  next  motion  was  made  by  Roszel,  and  seconded 
by  Lee:  "That  it  shall  take  two  thirds  of  the  representa- 
tives of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  to  form  a  quorum  for 
business  in  the  General  Conference." 

This  essential  rule  prevailed  by  a  majority  of  only  seven. 
Without  it  the  General  Conference  could  by  a  majority  of 
whatever  number  might  be  present  enact  any  legislation, 
not  prohibited  by  the  restrictions,  however  trifling  or  de- 
structive it  might  be. 

On  the  next  day  Lee  moved,  and  Burke  seconded,  that 
"the  next  General  Conference  shall  not  change  or  alter 
any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to  do  away  epis- 
copacy or  to  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  General 
Superintendency."   This  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Roszel,  seconded  by  Pickering,  it  was 
enacted  that  "one  of  the  Superintendents  shall  preside  in 
the  General  Conference;  but  in  case  of  the  absence  of  a 
Superintendent  the  Conference  shall  elect  a  president 
pro  tern."  Then  followed  a  series  of  motions  moved  by 
Roszel,  and  seconded  by  Reed,  namely: 

The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  for  our  Church,  under  the  following  restrictions, 
viz.: 

1.    The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change 


112  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  or 
rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and  estab- 
lished standards  of  doctrine.  Carried. 

2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for 
every  five  members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  of  a 
less  number  than  one  for  every  seven.  Carried. 

At  this  point  it  was  moved  by  Daniel  Hitt,  of  Baltimore, 
and  seconded  by  Samuel  Coate,  of  New  York,  that  "a  com- 
mittee of  three  be  appointed  to  modify  certain  exceptional 
expressions  in  the  General  Rules,"  but  the  motion  was 
lost. 

The  series  of  restrictions,  moved  by  Roszel  and  seconded 
by  Reed,  was  taken  up  where  it  had  been  left  and  the  third, 
"They  shall  not  revoke  or  change"  the  "General  Rules  of 
the  United  Societies,"  was  passed.  The  fourth  restriction 
was  also  enacted : 

4.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or 
preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal;  neither 
shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members  of  trial  before 
the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal. 

The  fifth  restriction  was  carried : 

5.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern, or  of  the  Charter  Fund  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the 
benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and 
worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 

The  sixth  restriction  as  proposed  and  adopted  was: 
Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation 
of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of 
the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suflSce  to  alter  any  of 
the  above  restrictions. 

At  the  afternoon  session,  Ostrander  moved,  and  Cooper 
seconded,  that  "The  General  Superintendents,  with  or  by 
the  advice  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  respectively, 
shall  have  power  to  call  a  General  Conference,  if  they 
judge  it  necessary."   This  prevailed. 

The  next  entry  in  the  Journal  is:  ''Moved  from  the 


LAST  NOXDELEGATED  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  113 

chair,  that  the  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  once  in  four  years  perpetually,  at  such  place 
or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Conference 
from  time  to  time.  Carried." 

The  last  enactment  on  this  subject,  immediately  before 
the  final  adjournment,  was  made  by  Joseph  Totten,  and 
seconded  by  Roszel :  "That  no  preacher  shall  be  sent  as  a 
representative  to  the  General  Conference  until  he  has 
traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years  from  the  time 
that  he  was  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual  Conference, 
and  is  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding  the  Con- 
ference." 

These  were  the  provisions  made  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1808  for  the  "regulating  and  perpetuating  Gen- 
eral Conference  in  future." 


CHAPTER  XV 


Comments  on  Preceding  Chapter 

In  considering  the  momentous  transactions  detailed  in 
the  preceding  chapter  it  should  be  noted  that  the  pro- 
visions finally  adopted  were  moved  and  seconded  on  a 
pre-formed  plan  to  include,  in  the  work  of  constitution- 
making,  leaders  from  as  many  Conferences  as  possible, 
and  also  to  demonstrate  to  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  that  substantial  imanimity  had  been 
reached. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  important  changes  had  been 
made  in  the  original  draft  reported  by  the  committee.  The 
report  of  the  committee,  as  first  presented  to  the  Con- 
ference for  its  action,  ju-ovided  that  each  Annual  Con- 
ference respectively  should  "have  the  right  to  send  seven 
elders,  members  of  their  Conference,  as  delegates  to  the 
General  Conference,"  and  that  each  Annual  Conference 
should  "have  the  right  to  send  one  delegate,  in  addition  to 
the  seven,  for  every  ten  members  belonging  to  such  Con- 
ference over  and  above  fifty;  so  that  if  there  be  sixty 
members,  they  shall  send  eight;  if  seventy,  they  shall  send 
nine;  and  so  on  in  proportion";  whereas,  as  adopted,  each 
Conference  was  allowed  to  send  one  delegate  for  every 
five  members  thereof,  and  no  more ;  either  to  be  appointed 
by  "seniority  or  choice  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual 
Conference,"  and  that  only  those  representatives  could 
be  eligible  who  had  traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar 
years  from  the  time  when  they  were  received  on  trial  by 
an  Annual  Conference,  and  were  in  full  connection  at  the 
time  of  holding  the  Conference. 

The  original  draft  provided  that  one  of  the  original 
Superintendents  should  preside  in  the  General  Conference. 
114 


COMMENTS  ON  PRECEDING  CHAPTER  115 


This  would  have  restricted  the  presidency  to  Asbury  aud 
Coke,  so  long  as  they  lived  and  were  present  in  the  Con- 
ference. 

As  first  presented,  there  was  no  provision  made  for  the 
calling  of  a  special  General  Conference. 

The  provision  concerning  the  powers  of  the  General 
Conference  read  as  follows:  "The  General  Conference 
shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules,  regulations,  and 
canons  for  our  Church,  under  the  following  limitations 
and  restrictions,  viz."  As  finally  adopted,  "and  canons'' 
was  stricken  out,  and  "and"  inserted  between  "rules"  and 
"regulations."  There  were  also  changes  in  the  restric- 
tions. In  the  original  form,  the  first  was,  "The  General 
Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  Articles 
of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  of  doctrine." 
This  was  changed  so  as  to  read  as  follows:  "Nor  estab- 
lish any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to 
our  present  existing  and  established  standards  of  doc- 
trine." A  margin  was  introduced  into  the  restriction  con- 
cerning the  number  of  members,  so  as  to  provide  that, 
"They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for 
every  five  members  of  the  Annual  Conference,  nor  allow  a 
less  number  than  one  for  every  seven." 

These  were  important  alterations  and  additions.  In 
his  Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal  Meth- 
odism/' Tigert  states  that  the  word  "original,"  in  the  rule 
concerning  the  presiding  officers,  is  probably  a  clerical 
error  or  misprint  for  "general."  This  is  wholly  improb- 
able. In  the  year  1800,  McClaskey,  of  the  Philadelphia 
Conference,  moved : 

Whereas,  By  vote  of  the  Conference  It  is  determined  that  an- 
other Bishop  shall  be  elected, 

Resolved,  That  the  Conference  determine,  before  the  votes 
be  canvassed,  the  powers  of  the  new  Bishops,  whether  he  shall 
be  equal  to  Bishop  Asbury,  or  subordinate  to  him. 


116  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

This  was  withdrawn.  Later,  a  motion  was  made  "that  the 
Bishops  shall  have  full  and  equal  jurisdiction  in  all  and 
every  respect  whatsoever.  That  each  and  every  Bishop 
shall  attend  each  and  every  Conference,  and  then  and 
there  mutually  preside,  and  station  the  preachers."  To 
this  was  added  a  provision :  "In  case  they  should  un- 
avoidably be  prevented  from  all  attending,  the  Bishops 
then  present  shall  be  competent  to  discharge  the  duties  of 
the  ofldce  as  fully  and  effectually,  in  every  respect,  as  if 
they  were  all  present."  This  motion  was  put  to  vote  and 
negatived. 

Nothing  is  more  probable  than  that  Bishop  Asbury 
felt  that  he  had  a  just  claim  to  prominence  and  weight 
of  influence  among  the  Bishops.  It  is  improbable  that 
John  McClintock,  the  eminent  scholar  and  author,  to 
whom  was  intrusted  the  publication  of  the  Journals, 
would  allow  so  great  a  mistake  as  "original"  for  "gen- 
eral," or  that  it  would  have  so  long  been  left  uncorrected. 

Pending  the  deliberations  on  the  formation  of  a  dele- 
gated Conference  by  the  committee  of  fourteen,  the 
regular  proceedings  continued. 

The  question  whether  the  present  General  Superin- 
tendency  needed  strengthening  was  debated  and  voted 
upon ;  and  a  motion  was  made  that  one  person  be  elected 
and  ordained  as  "Joint  Superintendent  or  Bishop  with 
Bishop  Asbury."  It  was  moved  by  Ostrander,  and  sec- 
onded by  Soule,  that  two  be  elected.  McClaskey  moved 
and  Cooper  seconded  that  seven  Bishops  be  added  to  the 
Superintendency.  Bangs  speaks  of  this  as  follows.  Before 
the  motion  for  the  election  and  consecration  of  an  addi- 
tional Bishoj)  had  passed, 

a  motion  for  the  election  of  seven  additional  Bishops,  one  for 
each  Annual  Conference,  with  Bishop  Asbury  at  their  head,  was 
largely  and  ably  discussed  by  some  of  the  leading  members  of 
the  Conference  on  each  side.    Those  who  were  in  favor  of  this 


COMMENTS  ON  PRECEDING  CHAPTER 


117 


motion  were  also  in  favor  of  either  abolishing  or  greatly  re- 
stricting the  office  of  presiding  elder,  and  making  the  episcopacy 
so  large  as  in  a  great  measure  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  that 
office.  But  as  it  was  finally  settled  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
Conference  that  this  officer  should  he  continued  in  the  Church, 
and  likewise  continue  to  he  appointed  hy  the  Bishop,  so  the  mo- 
tion for  adding  seven  additional  Bishops,  notwithstanding  the 
plausibility  with  which  the  measure  was  urged  upon  the  Con- 
ference, was  finally  rejected  by  a  strong  vote.' 

The  Conference  finally  decided  to  elect  one  Bishop;  the 
choice  to  be  by  ballot.  One  hundred  and  twenty-eight 
votes  were  cast,  and  of  these  William  McKendree  received 
ninety-five,  a  choice  which  meant  more  to  the  Church  than 
could  possibly  have  been  anticipated. 


'Bangs,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  ii,  p.  235. 


THE  CREATION  OF  A  WRITTEN 
CONSTITUTION 


CHAPTER  XVI 


The  Word  "Constitution" 

To  prevent  confusion  of  thought,  the  word  "constitu- 
tion" must  be  carefully  considered.  One  of  its  definitions 
is,  "A  particuJar  law,  ordinance,  or  regulation,  made  by 
the  authority  of  any  superior,  civil  or  ecclesiastical ;  spe- 
cifically, in  Roman  law,  what  an  emperor  enacted,  either 
by  decree,  edict,  or  letter,  and  without  the  interposition 
of  any  constitutional  assembly:  as,  the  Constitution  of 
Justinian." 

This  defines  the  relation  of  Wesley  to  the  British  Con- 
ference. During  the  greater  part  of  his  career  there  was 
no  constitutional  assembly  which  could,  in  any  degree, 
restrain  or  direct  his  will.  Gradually  there  grew  up  a 
moral  power  which  took  on  the  form  of  a  legislative 
assembly  and  exerted  marked  influence;  nevertheless  abso- 
lute power  theoretically  inhered  in  Wesley  to  the  last. 
The  early  Methodist  Conferences  in  North  America  sub- 
mitted to  Wesley,  whose  will  was  first  exercised  over  them 
through  Asbury,  then  by  Rankin,  Asbury  being  subordi- 
nate to  him.  After  a  period  of  struggle,  power  similar  to 
that  held  by  Rankin  was  given  to  Asbury ;  and  this  prac- 
tically endured  until  the  organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  1784. 

The  word  "constitutionally"  was  used  in  this  sense  by 
Asbury,  in  a  letter  which  he  sent  to  England  in  1797 :  "We 
have  to  lament  that  our  Superintendency  is  so  weak  and 
that  it  cannot  constitutionally  be  strengthened  until  the 
ensuing  General  Conference."  In  that  sense  he  meant 
that  there  was  no  means  of  securing  an  election  of 
Bishops,  the  ultimate  decision  being  with  the  General 
121 


122  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Conference.  In  the  same  letter  Asbury  observes:  "We 
have  but  one  grand  responsive  body,  which  is  our  General 
Conference.  ...  No  yearly  Conference,  no  oflScial 
character  dare  assume  to  answer  for  that  grand  federal 
body," 

In  this  case  the  General  Conference  had  all  the  power 
of  Justinian  or  Wesle}-.  Asbury  speaks  of  traveling  with 
an  Assistant  "who  does  everything  for  me  he  constitu- 
tionally can,  but  the  ordaining  and  stationing  of  preachers 
can  only  be  performed  by  myself  in  the  Doctor's  [Coke] 
absence."  These  observations  rest  upon  the  principle 
that  the  Discipline,  then  simply  a  series  of  mandates, 
must  be  observed.  Tigert  justly  remarks,  "It  must  not 
be  forgotten,  however,  that,  notwithstanding  the  unlim- 
ited powers  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  subordi- 
nate position  of  the  yearly  bodies,  no  hard-and-fast  line 
had  yet  been  drawn,  in  the  mind  of  the  Church,  between 
the  action  of  the  ministry  assembled  in  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  action  of  the  ministry  generally  in  the 
Annual  Conferences."^ 

The  second  and  commonly  accepted  significance  of 
the  word  "constitution"  is,  "A  system  of  fundamental 
principles,  maxims,  laws,  or  rules  embodied  in  written 
documents  or  established  by  prescriptive  usage  for  the 
government  of  a  nation,  state,  society,  corporation,  or 
association."  The  preceding  account  of  the  formation 
of  the  Church  is  sufficient  to  clarify  this  point. 

Assuming  the  power,  by  the  implied  consent  and  at  the 
suggestion  of  Wesley,  the  preachers,  in  convention  as- 
sembled, organized  themselves  into  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  selected  Superintendents,  ordained  elders 
and  deacons,  and  enacted  a  system  of  laws  defining  with 
more  or  less  fullness  the  duties  of  all  members  and  officers 

^Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism,  Revised  Edition, 
p.  284. 


THE  WORD  "CONSTITUTION" 


123 


composing  the  societies,  implying  in  part  and  expressing 
in  part  their  rights  and  privileges.  They  accepted  and 
adopted  doctrinal  standards  and  liturgical  forms,  the 
power  of  government  being  invested  entirely  in  the 
preachers. 

The  preachers  who  had  not  been  present  and  the  laity 
subsequently  acquiesced  in  this  action.  Xo  provision  was 
made  at  that  time  for  a  democratic  assembly  of  all 
the  preachers  at  one  time  and  place,  but  the  subsequent 
proceedings  were  in  harmony  with  the  assumption  that 
absolute  authority  inhered  in  the  preachers.  The  diffi- 
culty of  enacting  rules  for  the  government  of  the  Church 
has  been  described,  and  also  the  futile  experiment  of 
the  council  and  the  establishment  of  General  Confer- 
ences. 

Each  of  these  General  Conferences  was  all  powerful. 
They  limited  themselves  only  by  parliamentary  niles, 
which,  however,  they  had  power  to  change. 

From  178-'f  to  and  including  the  General  Conference  of 
1808  they  had  the  power  to  depose  a  Bishop  without  trial, 
to  transform  the  government  into  a  strictly  Presbyterian 
organization,  or  to  resolve  it  into  separate  congregations ; 
to  modify  or  abolish  every  rule  or  custom,  and  to  change 
the  doctrinal  basis,  or  to  dissolve  the  General  Conferences 
and  resume  the  tedious  method  of  submitting  the  busi- 
ness to  the  successive  Annual  Conferences.  In  short, 
they  had  the  power  to  revol-e  anything  that  had  teen 
done,  either  J)y  any  preceding  General  Conference,  by  the 
Annual  Conferences,  or  by  the  convention  tchich  organ- 
ized the  Church. 

The  official  record  of  their  proceedings  demonstrates 
that  they  were  fully  conscious  of  absolute  control. 

In  his  work  on  The  Umcritten  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  Christopher  G.  Tiedeman,  professor  of 
law  in  the  University  of  Missouri,  thus  describes  the 


122  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Conference.  In  the  same  letter  Asbury  observes:  "We 
have  but  one  grand  responsive  body,  which  is  our  General 
Conference.  .  .  .  No  yearly  Conference,  no  official 
character  dare  assume  to  answer  for  that  grand  federal 
body." 

In  this  case  the  General  Conference  had  all  the  power 
of  Justinian  or  Wesley.  Asbury  speaks  of  traveling  with 
an  Assistant  "who  does  everything  for  me  he  constitu- 
tionally can,  but  the  ordaining  and  stationing  of  preachers 
can  only  be  performed  by  myself  in  the  Doctor's  [Coke] 
absence."  These  observations  rest  upon  the  principle 
that  the  Discipline,  then  simply  a  series  of  mandates, 
must  be  observed.  Tigert  justly  remarks,  "It  must  not 
be  forgotten,  however,  that,  notwithstanding  the  unlim- 
ited powers  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  subordi- 
nate position  of  the  yearly  bodies,  no  hard-and-fast  line 
had  yet  been  drawn,  in  the  mind  of  the  Church,  between 
the  action  of  the  ministry  assembled  in  General  Confer- 
ence and  the  action  of  the  ministry  generally  in  the 
Annual  Conferences."* 

The  second  and  commonly  accepted  significance  of 
the  word  "constitution"  is,  "A  system  of  fundamental 
principles,  maxims,  laws,  or  rules  embodied  in  written 
documents  or  established  by  prescriptive  usage  for  the 
government  of  a  nation,  state,  society,  corporation,  or 
association."  The  preceding  account  of  the  formation 
of  the  Church  is  sufficient  to  clarify  this  point. 

Assuming  the  power,  by  the  implied  consent  and  at  the 
suggestion  of  Wesley,  the  preachers,  in  convention  as- 
sembled, organized  themselves  into  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  selected  Superintendents,  ordained  elders 
and  deacons,  and  enacted  a  system  of  laws  defining  with 
more  or  less  fullness  the  duties  of  all  members  and  officers 

^Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism,  Revised  Edition, 
p.  284. 


THE  WORD  "CONSTITUTION" 


123 


composing  the  societies,  implying  in  part  and  expressing 
in  part  tlieir  riglits  and  privileges.  They  accepted  and 
adopted  doctrinal  standards  and  liturgical  forms,  the 
power  of  government  being  invested  entirely  in  the 
preachers. 

The  preachers  who  had  not  been  present  and  the  laity 
subsequently  acquiesced  in  this  action.  No  provision  was 
made  at  that  time  for  a  democratic  assembly  of  all 
the  preachers  at  one  time  and  place,  but  the  subsequent 
proceedings  were  in  harmonj^  with  the  assumption  that 
absolute  authority  inhered  in  the  preachers.  The  diffi- 
culty of  enacting  rules  for  the  government  of  the  Church 
has  been  described,  and  also  the  futile  experiment  of 
the  council  and  the  establishment  of  General  Confer- 
ences. 

Each  of  these  General  Conferences  was  all  powerful. 
They  limited  themselves  only  by  parliamentary  rales, 
which,  however,  they  had  power  to  change. 

From  178-^  to  and  including  the  General  Conference  of 
1808  they  had  the  power  to  depose  a  Bishop  without  trial, 
to  transform  the  government  into  a  strictly  Presbyterian 
organization,  or  to  resolve  it  into  separate  congregations ; 
to  modify  or  abolish  every  rule  or  custom,  and  to  change 
the  doctrinal  basis,  or  to  dissolve  the  General  Conferences 
and  resume  the  tedious  method  of  submitting  the  busi- 
ness to  the  successive  Annual  Conferences.  In  short, 
they  had  the  poicer  to  revoke  anything  that  had  heen 
done,  either  hy  any  preceding  General  Conference,  by  the 
Annual  Conferences,  or  by  the  convention  which  organ- 
ized the  Church. 

The  official  record  of  their  proceedings  demonstrates 
that  they  were  fully  conscious  of  absolute  control. 

In  his  work  on  The  Unwritten  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  Christopher  G.  Tiedeman,  professor  of 
law  in  the  University  of  Missouri,  thus  describes  the 


124  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

British  Constitution :  "The  British  Constitution,  ieing 
unwritten,  reflects  accurately  and  promptly  the  muta- 
tions of  public  opinion ;  for  Parliament,  being  subject 
to  no  limitation,  with  its  hand  constantly  on  the  public 
pulse,  in  every  case  of  permanent  and  effective  legisla- 
tion simply  records  the  decree  of  the  people;  and  if  that 
decree  involves  the  adoption  of  a  new  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, a  change  is  thus  wrought  in  the  British  Constitu- 
tion." 

This  was  the  nature  of  the  Constitution  existing 
between  1784  (^nd  the  close  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1808.  But  the  one  formed  by  that  body  was  a  written 
Constitution.  In  this  particular  only  it  resembles  that 
of  the  United  States  and  those  of  the  respective  States. 

EVERY  ELEMENT  OF  A  CONSTITUTION 

As  at  various  times  the  question  has  been  raised 
whether  the  Church  has  a  Constitution,  it  is  necessary  to 
give  the  subject  a  more  detailed  consideration.  When 
not  brought  forward  in  the  interest  of  some  proposal 
plainly  unconstitutional,  or  the  constitutionality  of  which 
is  open  to  reasonable  doubt,  this  question  is  the  result 
of  a  lack  of  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  the  Church. 

As  we  have  seen,  prior  to  1808  the  government  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  in  the  hands  of  an 
oligarchy  of  ministers.  The  Discipline  was  the  book  of 
laws,  no  distinction  being  made  in  the  Conference  between 
constitutional  and  legislative  provisions  and  enactments. 

Nevertheless,  Bishops  Asbury  and  Coke,  with  their 
"Notes  on  the  Discipline,"  prepared  by  request  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1796,  and  published  for  a  time 
with  the  Discipline,  by  order  of  the  General  Conference, 
under  the  title  "General  and  Yearly  Conference,"  refer- 
ring to  the  unwisdom  of  holding  a  General  Conference 
oftener  than  once  in  four  years,  said,  "Nor  do  we  think, 


THE  WORD  "CONSTITUTION" 


125 


that  the  nature  of  a  religious  constitution  renders  it 
necessary  to  revise  more  frequently  the  regulations  by 
which  it  is  governed."  Again  :  as  "The  Bishops  are  bound 
to  obey  and  suhinit  to  the  General  Conference,  so  the 
preachers  are  bound  to  obey  and  submit  to  the  General 
Conference;  and  also  to  the  yearly  Conference  in  every- 
thing except  the  stationing  of  them  for  their  respective 
districts  and  circuits,  and  in  this  respect  they  are  bound 
to  obey  and  submit  to  the  episcopacy."  They  reaflBrm 
these  statements  thus :  "This  is  the  order  of  our  Church : 
and  as  the  New  Testament  is  silent  as  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  states,  so  is  it  in  a  great  measure  as  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  Churches;  .  .  .  this  does  not  in  any 
degree  prevent  the  due  reformation  of  the  Constitutions 
of  Churches  any  more  than  of  states." 

When  the  General  Conference  met  in  1808  the  Church 
had  this  species  of  Constitution,  and  all  power  to  change 
or  repeal  any  part  of  it.  Having  absolute  control,  it 
could  also  arrange  for  "tJie  perpetuation  and  regulation 
of  General  Conferences;"  and  this  it  did. 

Since  no  question  of  constitutionality  could  arise — 
previous  to  the  establishment  of  a  delegated  General 
Conference  with  restricted  powers — we  do  not  find  the 
word  "constitution"  either  in  the  Journals  of  previous 
General  Conferences  or  in  the  Minutes  of  Annual  Con- 
ferences. 

But  in  the  second  delegated  Conference  a  committee, 
to  which  the  addresses  of  the  Bishops  were  referred  for 
examination,  reported  in  favor  of  the  appointment  of  a 
"Committee  of  Review  and  Revision."  This  committee 
was  to  be  instructed  that  if  "any  rules  and  regulations 
made  by  the  General  Conference  should  be  deemed 
unconstitutional,  they  should  report  the  grounds  of  their 
objections  to  the  General  Conference  in  writing."  This 
resolution,  however,  was  not  adopted,  but  the  Minutes 


126  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


also  record  that  "the  legality  and  unconstitutionality" 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Philadelphia  Conference  were 
called  in  question. 

The  General  Conference  of  1820  instructed  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rights  and  Privileges  to  inquire  into  the  "con- 
stitutionality of  the  location  of  traveling  preachers 
without  their  consent."  In  the  General  Conference  of 
1824,  Peter  Cartwright  declared  that  "the  majority  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  adjudged  certain  resolutions 
unconstitutional."  The  General  Conference  of  1828  dis- 
cussed an  important  question  from  the  point  of  view  of 
"constitutionality." 

The  General  Conference  of  1832  declared  that  "consti- 
tutional difficulties"  were  in  the  way  of  settling  with  the 
Canadian  brethren  on  the  division  of  the  Book  Concern 
profits  and  property  without  its  being  submitted  "to 
three  fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  several  Annual 
Conferences." 

The  great  debates  of  1844  were  largely  constitutional 
discussions  wherein  both  sides  assumed  the  existence  of 
a  "Constitution,"  and  discussed  its  meanings,  implica- 
tions, and  applications. 

Prior  to  the  consummation  of  the  present  Consti- 
tution by  the  final  vote  of  the  ministry  and  laity  in 
the  Annual  Conferences,  occasionally  persons  asserted 
that  "no  one  knows  what  the  Constitution  is."  The  fact 
is,  that  there  had  been  some  dispute  as  to  whether  certain 
passages  relating  to  the  General  Conference,  but  not  in 
or  referred  to  by  the  Restrictive  Rules,  belonged  to  the 
Constitution:  such  as  whether  the  language  of  the  Dis- 
cipline which  provides  for  a  General  Conference  is  a  part 
of  tJw  Constitution.  There  were  also  questions  as  to 
whether  one  or  two  changes  which  had  been  made  in  the 
Constitution  had  been  legally  accomplished.  Although 
proposals  were  made  and  votes  taken,  as  if  the  General 


THE  WORD  "CONSTITUTION" 


127 


Conference  had  supreme  power  over  those  provisions, 
the  question,  what  the  Constitution  was,  was  never  defi- 
nitely and  dcnoiiiinationaUy  raised  and  discussed  from 
the  time  of  the  promulgation  of  the  Constitution  in  1808 
until  1868. 

But  from  1868  the  Church  without  dissent  has  acted 
upon  the  assumption  that  those  parts  of  the  Discipline 
which  declare  that  there  shall  be  a  General  Conference; 
which  establish  the  quorum ;  and  the  ratio  of  representa- 
tion ;  the  necessity  of  a  Hishop's  presiding,  if  there  be  one 
present,  and  if  otherwise  provide  that  the  Conference 
shall  elect  a  presiding  officer  pro  tempore;  the  rule  for 
meeting  once  in  four  years,  and  the  date  of  opening,  and 
the  defining  of  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference, 
are  a  part  of  the  Covstifntioji  and  are  alterable  only  by 
the  method  provided  for  cJiaiifiing  the  Restrictive  Rules. 

Any  apparent  exceptions  will  receive  due  attention. 


CHAPTER  XVII 


The  "Constitution  of  the  General  Conference" 

Some  confusion  arose  in  the  Church  from  the  peculiar 
use  of  the  phrase  "constitution  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence." Such  a  phrase  cannot  be  found  in  the  Journals 
of  the  General  Conference  for  the  first  thirty  years,  except 
in  one  place,  where  it  is  used  as  it  might  be  of  the  con- 
stitution of  a  Quarterly  Conference,  the  Leaders  and 
Stewards'  Meeting,  or,  the  constitution  of  "anything  that 
ever  was  made."  This  is  the  reference:  In  the  General 
Conference  of  1816  a  memorial  from  local  preachers 
asked  "that  they  may  have  representatives  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference."  This  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  "the  State  of  the  Local  Preachers,"  which  reported 
that  the  proposal  is  "inconsistent  with  the  present  con- 
stitution of  the  General  Conference.'^  The  committee 
based  its  report  upon  the  proposition  that  the  "Consti- 
tution of  the  Church"  provided  that  the  General  Con- 
ference should  be  composed  only  of  members  of  Annual 
Conferences. 

The  word  "constitution"  in  this  statement  is  used  in 
two  different  and  distinct  senses,  for  the  General  Con- 
ference is  formed  or  constituted  a  part  of  the  "Consti- 
tution of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  The 
Constitution  of  the  Church  consists  of  and  includes  all 
laws  or  provisions  made  by  the  said  Church  which  the 
General  Conference  alone  has  no  power  to  repeal  or 
change,  whereas  the  constitution  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence consists  entirely  of  rules  determining  the  qualifica- 
tions of  its  members,  its  mode  of  organization,  and  its 
powers  and  limitations. 

It  must  be  emphasized  that  the  Constitution  of  the 

128 


"CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE"  129 

Church  includes  the  so-called  constitution  of  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  and  all  laws  or  declarations  of  the  Church 
which  the  General  Conference,  acting  alone,  has  no  legal 
power  to  repeal  or  alter. 

LITTLE  GROUND  FOR  DISSATISFACTION 

During  1820-1832  in  the  controversies  between  the 
Church  and  seceders  the  question  was  raised  whether  the 
General  Conference  of  1808  had  power  to  compel  the 
whole  Church  to  obev  its  behests  concerning  future  Gen- 
eral Conferences.  Could  it  have  prevented  another  non- 
delegated  General  Conference,  or  an  immediate  call  for 
a  convention  of  all  ministers  and  could  it  have  prevented 
such  a  convention  from  denouncing  the  Constitution,  or 
the  Annual  Conferences  from  repudiating  the  acts  of 
other  delegated  General  Conferences? 

The  answer  to  these  natural  inquiries  is :  All  power 
was  exercised  by  the  itudrlegatcd  Ocneral  Conferences, 
but  each  acted  for  itself,  and  for  itself  only.  The  undele- 
gated General  Conference  was  theoretically  the  sum  of 
all  the  votes  of  the  ordained  ministry. 

If  the  Annual  Conferences  had  refused  by  majorities 
to  accept  the  Constitution  of  1808,  and  had  acted  in  har- 
mony with  their  refusal,  no  delegated  Conference  could 
have  been  elected.  What  then?  The  ministers  might 
have  convened,  as  they  had  done  in  1808,  but  if  the  jeal- 
ousy of  the  extraordinary  power  exercised  by  the  two 
central  Conferences  and  the  distance  prevented  the  Con- 
ferences from  assembling  with  them,  then  the  forever 
tedious  method  of  carrying  the  business  from  one  Annual 
Conference  to  another,  might  have  been  resumed;  or  the 
solidarity  of  the  Church  would  have  given  place  to  the 
splitting  off  of  ecclesiastical  asteroids  forming  their  own 
orbits,  and  Methodism  would  have  lived  "at  a  poor,  dying 
rate,"  or  gradually  disappeared. 


130  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

But  there  was  very  little  dissatisfaction ;  none,  indeed, 
of  a  permanent  type. 

Bangs  says:  "The  lively  satisfaction  too  with  which 
this  act  of  the  Conference  was  received  generally,  both 
by  ministers  and  people,  abundantly  proves  the  wisdom 
which  presided  in  that  council  which  devised  these  reso- 
lutions, and  applauds  the  prudence  and  caution  with 
which  they  were  cordially  adopted."  He  also  character- 
izes the  previous  situation  in  a  single  sentence:  "Before 
this,  each  General  Conference  felt  itself  at  full  liberty, 
not  being  prohibited  by  any  standing  laws,  to  make  what- 
ever alterations  it  might  see  fit,  or  to  introduce  any  new 
doctrine  or  item  in  the  Discipline,  which  their  fancy, 
inclination,  discretion,  or  indiscretion  might  dictate."* 

Notwithstanding  the  heavy  debates  in  which  Jesse  Lee, 
the  "Great  Commoner  of  the  Infant  Church,"  participated, 
and  his  disappointment  in  some  particulars,  he  observes 
in  his  History  of  MetJiodists  (page  351),  published  in 
1810 — one  of  the  frankest  histories  in  the  world :  "There 
was  a  good  deal  of  peace  and  union  among  the  preachers 
of  that  General  Conference;  and  there  were  one  hundred 
and  thirty  members  of  that  Conference.  .  .  .  Most  of 
the  preachers  returned  from  that  Conference  well  satis- 
fied with  what  was  done  while  we  were  together." 

THE    DISSENTING    ARGUMENT    OF  SNETHEN 

Nevertheless,  the  really  great  Nicholas  Snethen,  who 
later  seceded  from  the  denomination  and  became  one  of 
the  founders  of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church — who 
was  a  member  of  the  General  Conference  in  1800  and 
1812,  but  not  of  1808 — when  he  was  advocating  the  abo- 
lition of  the  episcopacy  and  the  presiding  eldership  in 
1822,  denied  that  the  Conference  of  1808  could  make  a 
Constitution.    His  argument  was  as  follows: 

^History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  234. 


"CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE"  131 


What  is  a  constitution?  According  to  the  opinion  of  the  most 
approved  writers  on  the  subject,  it  is  an  instrument  that  cannot 
be  altered  or  abrogated  by  a  legislative  power;  but  by  the  united 
consent  and  authority  of  the  whole  community.  The  United 
States  and  each  individual  State  of  the  Union  have  a  written 
Constitution  from  which  the  legislative  authority  is  derived.  In 
other  countries,  where  the  form  of  government  can  be  traced  to 
any  common  act,  the  choice  of  the  people,  much  pains  has  been 
taken  and  great  learning  displayed  to  prove  that  a  constitution 
may  exist  without  such  choice  or  consent.  Americans,  however, 
think  otherwise  and  act  accordingly.  In  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  no  instrument  was  ever  dignified  with  the  name 
of  a  constitution;  but  in  that  year,  1808,  six  articles  were  framed 
under  a  denomination  of  limitations  and  restrictions,  .  .  .  but  the 
word  "Constitution"  is  not  found  in  the  Book  of  Discipline.  And 
if  we  may  be  permitted  to  think  and  speak  as  Americans,  neither 
the  General  Conference,  nor  any  body  among  us,  was  ever  or- 
ganized, or  endowed  with  prerogatives,  to  make  a  constitution. 
The  General  Conference  of  ISOS  might  signify  its  opinion  or 
wish  to  its  successors,  but  the  most  that  can  be  said  of  its  limit- 
ing and  restricting  enactments  is  that  their  laws  have  no  more 
binding  authority  upon  its  successors  than  legislative  enact- 
ments. It  is  to  be  hoped  that  every  preacher  will  admit  that 
the  General  Conference  of  1808  had  none  of  the  attributes  or 
powers  of  constitution-makers,  as  all  are  infinitely  interested  in 
disavowing  such  a  precedent  and  in  having  the  origin  and  nature 
of  a  constitution  clearly  and  distinctly  defined. 

The  destructive  diflQculty  with  regard  to  Snethen's 
definition,  in  its  application  to  the  acts  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1808,  is  that  the  whole  Church  had  heen 
prepared  for  such  a  work  ty  preceding  conditions  and 
discussions.  The  delegates,  with  few  exceptions,  perhaps 
with  none,  went  to  that  Conference  convinced  that  some- 
thing was  necessary  to  the  preservation  of  the  solidarity 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

It  must,  however,  be  admitted  that  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1808  had  no  more  sovereign  authority  to  dictate  en- 
actments to  be  forcTer  binding  upon  its  successors  than  the 
General  Conference  of  1804  had  to  bind  that  of  1808. 


132  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


But  Snethen  became  illogical  when  he  said,  "By  a  parity 
of  reasoning,  it  was  under  no  sovereignty  that  would 
disbar  the  General  Conference  of  1812  from  disannulling 
what  it  did  as  a  lawmaking  body." 

The  General  Conference  of  1812  was  not  such  a  body 
as  were  those  of  1804  and  1808 ;  it  did  not  consist  of  the 
whole  ministry  (except  such  as  were  generally  deemed 
to  have  not  possessed  suflflcient  experience),  but  of  a 
small  part  who  were  delegated  under  the  acts  of  1808. 

The  inexpugnable  fact  is  that  the  authority  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1808  icas  never  questioned.  After 
searching  all  accessible  records,  the  author  has  been 
unable  to  find  any  protest  of  importance  against  the 
action  of  that  body — until  the  Restrictive  Rules  ob- 
structed the  aims  of  those  who  were  proposing  funda- 
mental changes. 

The  result  was  determined  by  the  fact  that  every 
Annual  Conference  elected  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1812  under  the  conditions  prescribed  in  the 
plan  for  "regulating  and  perpetuating  the  General  Con- 
ference in  the  future." 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


Radical  Differences  Between  the  Constitution  of 
THE  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  that 
OF  the  United  States 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  begins  thus : 
Article  I 

Section  1.  All  legislative  powers  herein  granted  shall  be 
vested  in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States  which  shall  consist  of 
a  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 

Article  10  is  as  follows,  the  italics  being  added: 
The  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Con- 
stitution, nor  prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the 
States  respectively,  or  to  the  people. 

Upon  its  promulgation  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  did  not  give  entire  satisfaction.  On  the  contrary, 
various  States  disliked  it  as  a  form  of  government,  and 
others  disfavored  its  provisions  for  maintaining  such  a 
government.    Some  ratified  it  with  conditions. 

In  it  all  the  powers  of  the  executive,  legislative,  and 
judicial  divisions  of  the  government  are  expressly  named. 

The  Constitution  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
declares,  that  "The  General  Conference  shall  have  full 
power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church 
under  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions." 

The  people  of  the  United  States  substantially  said  to 
the  Congress,  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  President, 
"What  ice  have  specified  in  the  Constitution  you  may  do; 
all  this  but  nothing  more." 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  through  its  ministers 
— then  the  only  rulers — created  the  General  Conference 
133 


134  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

and  said  to  it,  "You  may  do  all  things,  except  what  we 
liei'ewitli  restrict  you  from  doing." 

BISHOPS  HARRIS  AND  MERRILL  ON  THE  CONSTITUTION 

William  L.  Harris  (afterward  Bishop),  in  The  Con- 
stitutional Powers  of  the  General  Conference,  states  that 
it  has  been  held  by  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the 
Church  as  well  as  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
that  "all  powers  not  expressly  reserved  or  excepted  are 
delegated  to  the  General  Conference." 

This  is  self-evident.  Harris  further  says  (page  21), 
"The  powers  couched  in  the  granting  clause  are  great 
enough  to  have  the  restrictions  carved  out  of  them ;  they 
would  have  embraced  everything  covered  by  the  restric- 
tions if  the  restrictions  had  not  been  imposed,"  and  on 
pages  35,  3G  he  adds :  "That  is,  if  there  is  a  necessity  for 
the  exception  it  is  a  proof  that  the  rule  would  extend  to 
the  excei)ted  cases  if  the  exception  did  not  exist." 

Bishop  Merrill,  in  his  Digest  of  Methodist  Law  (pages 
14,  15),  presents  the  case  with  great  lucidity. 

When  the  General  Conference  is  convened  and  organized 
under  this  Constitution  it  is  empowered  to  make  "rules  and 
regulations"  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  subject  only  to 
the  limitations  in  the  six  restrictions.  Its  grant  of  power  is  in 
general  terms,  and  the  limitations  are  specific.  In  this  respect, 
it  differs  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  the 
latter  the  grants  of  power  to  the  general  government  are  spe- 
cific, and  the  reserve  power  is  with  the  several  States  and  the 
people;  but  here  the  general  grant  covers  all  the  ground  of 
legislation,  with  the  particular  exceptions  noted. 

To  this  may  be  added  the  fact  that  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1808,  as  well  as  its  predecessors,  claimed  and  exer- 
cised the  power  to  make  any  rule  or  regulation  and  to 
change  or  to  repeal  any  regulation  without  any  "limita- 
tion or  restriction."  Therefore  the  difference  between  the 
non-delegated  and  the  delegated  General  Conferences  is, 


DIFFERENCES  BETWEEN  TWO  CONSTITUTIONS  135 


that  the  former  were  absolute  in  power,  while  those  pro- 
vided bj  the  Constitution  are  supreme;  that  is,  absolute 
except  as  limited  by  the  restrictions.^ 

'The  Bishops  establish  a  firm  foundation  for  these  statements  in  their  Address 
to  the  General  Conference  of  1840  (General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  ii,  pp.  138, 
139).  "The  Government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  peculiarly  con- 
structed. It  is  widely  different  from  our  civil  organization.  The  General  Confer- 
ence is  the  only  legislative  body  recognized  in  oar  ecclesiastical  system,  and  from 
it  originates  the  authority  of  the  entire  executive  administration."  Speaking  of 
complaints  against  the  Bishops'  administration,  they  say:  "In  all  such  cases  we 
have  given  the  most  unequivocal  assurances  that  we  should,  with  unfeigned  satis- 
faction and  the  kindest  feelings,  submit  the  whole  matter  in  controversy,  with  all 
ofiBcial  acts  in  the  premises,  to  the  enlightened  deliberation  and  final  judgment  of 
this  constitutional  tribunal." 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  SEPARATE 
PARTS  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


CHAPTER  XIX 


Essentials  op  a  Constitutional  General  Conference 

The  provisions  for  constituting  a  General  Conference 
involve : 

1.  The  qualifications  for  a  seat  therein. 

2.  The  number  of  representatives  to  which  the  Annual 
Conferences  respectively  shall  be  entitled. 

3.  The  frequency  with  which  regular  sessions  shall  be 
held. 

4.  The  month  and  the  day  of  the  month  on  which  the 
body  shall  convene. 

5.  The  number  necessary  for  a  quorum. 

6.  A  "President." 

7.  Measures  for  calling  a  special  General  Conference. 

8.  Rules  of  Order. 

As  published  in  the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1808,  the  qualifications  for  membership  in  the  General 
Conference  were : 

The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  memher  for 
every  five  members  of  each  Annual  Conference,  to  be  appointed 
either  by  seniority  or  choice  at  the  discretion  of  such  Annual  Con- 
ference; yet  so  that  such  representatives  shall  have  traveled  at 
least  four  full  calendar  years  from  the  time  that  they  are  re- 
ceived on  trial  by  an  Annual  Conference,  and  are  in  full  con- 
nection at  the  time  of  holding  the  Conference. 

The  fundamental  fact  in  this  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion is  that  its  terms  absolutely  excluded  the  Bishops  and 
the  laity  from  memhership  in  the  General  Conference. 

In  connection  with  this  rule  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
the  second  restriction :  "They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than 
one  representative  for  every  five  members  of  the  Annual 
139 


140  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for 
every  seven."^ 

The  Restrictive  Rule  gave  the  General  Conference  of 
1812  power  to  decide  whether  the  next  Conference  should 
consist  of  one  delegate  for  every  five,  six,  or  seven  mem- 
bers in  each  Annual  Conference. 

VARIOUS  CHANGES  IN  THE  RATIO  OP  REPRESENTATION 

In  the  Conference  of  1816  the  ratio  was  changed  to 
one  in  seven  by  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  next  General  Conference  shall  be  composed 
of  one  member  for  every  seven  instead  of  one  for  every  six  of 
each  Annual  Conference. 

The  conclusion  from  the  form  of  this  resolution  is  that 
the  General  Conference  of  1812  had  changed  the  number 
from  five  to  six,  though  the  Journal  does  not  record  such 
change. 

By  1824  the  number  of  delegates  had  so  increased  that 
the  General  Conference  of  that  year  felt  it  to  be  burden- 
some both  to  themselves  and  others  for  so  many  to 
assemble  together  every  fourth  year.  Therefore  a  recom- 
mendation had  been  sent  the  rounds  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences requesting  them  to  empower  the  General  Con- 
ference to  diminish  the  number  of  delegates.  At  the  ratio 
of  one  in  seven,  the  New  York  Conference  had  fifteen, 
the  New  England  fourteen,  and  several  thirteen.  A  Con- 
ference of  twenty-seven  was  represented  by  three  delegates. 
This  measure  was  defeated ;  but  the  manner  of  the  defeat 
was  the  cause  of  creating  a  great  change  in  the  method 
of  altering  the  Rules. 

The  General  Conference  of  1832  passed  and  sent  down 
to  the  several  Annual  Conferences  for  their  concurrence 
the  following  resolutions: 

iln  the  revision  of  the  Constitution  this  subject  was  placed  in  another  part  of 
the  Constitution,  and  the  Second  Rule  at  present  relates  to  the  organization  of 
Annual  Conferences. 


A  CONSTITUTIONAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  141 


Resolved,  1.  That  this  General  Conference  recommend  to  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  for  their  concurrence  and  adoption, 
as  provided  in  the  Sixth  Article  of  the  Restrictive  Rules,  the 
following  resolution  to  amend  the  Second  Article  of  the  said 
Restrictive  Rules: 

Resolved,  2.  That  the  Second  Article  of  the  Restrictive  Rules 
be  so  altered  as  to  read:  "They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than 
one  representative  for  every  fourteen  members  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every 
thirty;  provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be,  in  any 
Annual  Conference,  a  fraction  of  two  thirds  of  the  number 
which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation,  such  Annual 
Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such 
fraction;  and  provided,  also,  that  no  Conference  shall  be  de- 
prived of  the  privilege  of  two  delegates." 

Resolved,  3.  That  the  secretary  furnish  each  of  the  Bishops 
with  a  copy  of  those  resolutions,  and  they  are  hereby  respect- 
fully requested  to  present  the  same  to  their  several  Annual  Con- 
ferences, or  cause  them  to  be  presented,  at  their  next  session 
for  their  concurrence;  and  when  the  Bishops,  or  any  two  of  the 
Bishops,  shall  have  ascertained  that  three  fourths  of  all  the 
members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  voting  in  the  case, 
have  concurred  with  this  General  Conference,  they  shall  certify 
the  same,  and  cause  such  certificate  to  be  printed  in  the  Minutes, 
and  published  three  successive  weeks  in  The  Christian  Advocate 
and  Journal. 

Resolved,  4.  That  the  ratio  of  representation  for  the  next  • 
General  Conference  be  one  for  every  fourteen,  provided  the 
Annual  Conferences  concur  in  the  alteration  as  above  recom- 
mended by  this  Conference,  and  that  the  Discipline,  in  Section 
Three,  Answer  One,  to  Question  Two,  on  page  nineteen,  shall 
thereupon  be  so  altered  as  to  read:  "The  General  Conference 
shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every  fourteen  members 
of  each  Annual  Conference,"  etc.^ 

This  amendment  having  been  ratified  by  the  Annual 
Conferences,  the  Discipline  issued  in  1836  was  altered 
in  harmony  therewith,  and  from  that  day  the  fractional 
representation  has  been  legal. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1836  the  following  reso- 


'General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  402. 


142  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

lution  was  passed:  "That  the  ratio  of  delegates  for  the 
next  General  Conference  be  fixed  at  one  delegate  for  21 
members  of  each  Annual  Conference."  This  being  allow- 
able under  the  sliding  scale,  did  not  need  to  be  submitted 
to  the  Annual  Conferences. 

In  1856  the  Bishops  directed  attention  to  the  propriety 
of  reducing  the  ratio  of  representation.  This  part  of 
the  Episcopal  Address  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Revisals,  which  reported  to  the  General  Conference  a 
Resolution  inserting  "27"  instead  of  "21."^  The  same 
committee  recommended  the  alteration  of  the  Second 
Restrictive  Rule,  so  as  to  insert,  "One  for  every  45  in 
place  of  one  for  every  30."  The  adoption  of  the  change 
from  21  to  27  required  only  a  majority,  but  the  propo- 
sition to  change  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  required 
two  thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  General  Conference, 
and  also  a  vote  of  three  fourths  of  all  the  ministers 
present  and  voting  in  the  Annual  Conferences. 

This  in  both  cases  was  secured ;  but  the  Bishops,  in 
their  address  to  the  General  Conference  of  1860,  failed 
to  report  the  submission.  The  body  referred  the  subject 
to  the  Committee  on  Itinerancy,  which  reported  that  it 
was  unable  to  make  a  correct  report,  as  many  of  the 
Journals  could  not  be  examined,  the  delegates  having 
sent  them  home.  They,  therefore,  reported  that  the 
Bishops  be  authorized  to  make  the  report,  so  that  the 
alteration  might  be  made  in  the  forthcoming  Discipline. 
And  the  Discipline  of  1860  shows  that  this  was  done; 
the  rule  reading  "not  allowing  a  less  number  than  one 
for  every  forty-five."  The  General  Conference  of  1860,  by 
resolution,  also  changed  the  ratio  of  representation  from 
27  to  30. 

After  the  alteration  in  1832-6,  every  Conference,  how- 
ever small,  had  at  least  two  delegates. 

•General  Conference  Journal,  1856,  vol.  iii,  p.  193. 


A  CONSTITUTIONAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  143 

On  May  24,  1864,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Itin- 
erancy contained  a  proposition  to  change  the  Restrictive 
Rule,  and  insert  "one  delegate,"  so  that  it  might  read, 
"provided,  also,  that  no  Conference  shall  be  denied  the 
privilege  of  one  delegate."  The  proposition  received  the 
necessary  two  thirds  and  the  action  was  approved  by  the 
Annual  Conferences. 

The  Bishops  failed  to  mention  the  confirmation  of  the 
proposition  by  the  Annual  Conferences,  so  that  the  im- 
portant change  did  not  appear  in  the  Discipline  until 
1868. 

In  the  Revised  Constitution  of  1900-1904,  Abticlb  II, 
ministerial  delegates,  is  as  follows: 

EJach  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  at  least  one 
ministerial  delegate.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  allow 
more  than  one  ministerial  delegate  for  every  fourteen  members 
of  an  Annual  Conference  nor  less  than  one  for  every  forty-five; 
but  for  a  fraction  of  two  thirds  or  more  of  the  number  fixed 
by  the  General  Conference  as  the  ratio  of  representation,  an 
Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate. 

No  change  has  been  made  in  the  original  rule  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  requiring  that  the  repre- 
sentatives "shall  have  traveled  at  least  four  calendar 
years  from  the  time  that  they  were  received  on  trial  by 
an  Annual  Conference,  and  are  in  full  connection  at  the 
time  of  holding  the  Conference,"  but  the  section  in  the 
Revised  Constitution  reads  as  follows: 

Such  delegates  shall  be  elders,  at  least  twenty-five  years  of 
age,  and  shall  have  been  members  of  an  Annual  Conference  four 
consecutive  years,  and  at  the  time  of  their  election,  and  at  the 
time  of  the  session  of  the  General  Conference,  shall  be  members 
of  the  Annual  Conference  which  elected  them. 

The  General  Conference  of  1872  enacted  that  a  trans- 
ferred preacher  shall  not  be  counted  twice  in  the  same 
year  as  the  basis  of  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  nor  vote  for  delegates  to  the  General 


144  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Conference  in  any  Annual  Conference  where  he  is  not 
counted  as  a  part  of  the  basis  of  representation,  nor  vote 
twice  in  the  same  year  on  any  constitutional  question. 

THE  QUESTION   OP  "SENIORITY" 

The  original  Article  allowed  each  delegate  "to  be 
appointed  either  by  seniority  or  choice  at  the  discretion 
of  such  Annual  Conference." 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1812,  on  the  8th  of  May, 
Lee  "moved  that  the  members  of  the  next  General  Con- 
ference come  by  seniority,  and  that  the  supernumerary 
and  superannuated  preachers  shall  not  be  included  among 
the  senior  preachers ;  also  that  one  for  every  six  members 
shall  come  to  the  next  General  Conference,  and  in  case 
there  are  two  or  more  preachers  of  equal  standing,  then 
the  first  named  shall  have  the  preference.  And  in  case 
any  one  of  the  above  preachers  shall  fail  by  sickness  or 
otherwise  to  attend  the  General  Conference,  then  the 
next  senior  preacher  shall  come  in  his  place." 

This  resolution  was  brought  up  several  times,  and  dis- 
cussion postponed;  when  the  question  was  put  to  vote 
on  the  first  paragraph,  "That  the  members  of  the  next 
General  Conference  come  by  seniority,"  it  did  not  prevail. 

As  the  Constitution  permitted  members  of  Annual 
Conferences  to  choose  whether  their  delegates  should 
come  by  "seniority  or  choice,"  had  this  motion  prevailed, 
it  would  have  been  a  deadly  blow  to  the  Constitution. 

No  delegate  has  ever  been  sent  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence by  seniority;  nor  could  such  a  scheme  have  suc- 
ceeded ;  for  while  the  senior  in  a  Conference  may  be  its 
ablest  and  most  devout  member,  it  is  obvious  that  he 
might  be  neither,  or  possess  one  quality  and  not  the  other. 
Also  the  difference  between  the  actually  chronological 
senior  and  the  next  in  age  might  be  but  a  day;  or  if 
determined  by  the  years  in  actual  ministerial  service, 


A  CONSTITUTIONAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  145 


there  might  be  a  year  only  of  difference  according  to 
the  calendar  and  a  practical  difference  of  more  than  a 
decade  in  wisdom,  intellect,  and  fitness  for  participation 
in  the  deliberations  of  the  body.  Yet  the  phrase  "by  seni- 
ority or  choice"  j^ersisted  in  the  Constitution  until  lf)00. 

REVISED  CONSTITUTION  ON  MINISTERIAL  DELEGATES 

In  the  Revised  Constitution  all  that  relates  to  minis- 
terial delegates  is  as  follows,  under  "Organization  and 
Government,"  Paragraph  38: 

Article  II 

§  1.  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  at  least  one 
ministerial  delegate.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  allow 
more  than  one  ministerial  delegate  for  every  fourteen  members 
of  an  Annual  Conference,  nor  less  than  one  for  every  forty-five; 
but  for  a  fraction  of  two  thirds  or  more  of  the  number  fixed  by 
the  General  Conference  as  the  ratio  of  representation  an  Annual 
Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate. 

§  2.  The  ministerial  delegates  shall  be  elected  by  ballot  by 
the  members  of  the  Annual  Conference  at  its  session  immediately 
preceding  the  General  Conference.  Such  delegates  shall  be 
elders,  at  least  twenty-five  years  of  age,  and  shall  have  been 
members  of  an  Annual  Conference  four  successive  years,  and  at 
the  time  of  their  election  and  at  the  time  of  the  session  of  the 
General  Conference  shall  be  members  of  the  Annual  Conference 
which  elected  them.  An  Annual  Conference  may  elect  reserve 
delegates,  not  exceeding  three  in  number,  and  not  exceeding  the 
number  of  its  delegates. 

§  3.  No  minister  shall  be  counted  twice  in  the  same  year  in 
the  basis  for  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  General  Conference, 
nor  vote  in  such  election  where  he  is  not  counted,  nor  vote  in 
two  Conferences  in  the  same  year  on  a  constitutional  question.* 

In  all  these  references  to  the  ratio  of  representation, 
the  General  Conference  alone  has  the  right  to  make  any 
change  not  below  the  minimum  nor  above  the  maximum. 
To  alter  either  of  these  numbers  the  vote  must  be  taken 
as  for  other  modifications  of  the  Constitution. 


^Discipline,  1908,  p. 


CHAPTER  XX 


Dates  of  Regular  General  Conferences  and  Methods 
OF  Convening  Them 

The  provision  for  the  meeting  of  General  Conferences 
as  enacted  in  1808  was : 

The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of  May, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1812  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  thence- 
forward on  the  first  day  of  May  once  in  four  years  perpetually, 
in  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  General  Con- 
ference from  time  to  time:  but  the  General  Superintendents, 
with  or  by  the  advice  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  or  if  there 
be  no  General  Superintendent,  all  the  Annual  Conferences  re- 
spectively, shall  have  power  to  call  a  General  Conference,  if  they 
judge  it  necessary,  at  any  time. 

General  Conferences  prior  to  1808  met  quadrennially, 
and  this  having  proved  satisfactory,  there  was  entire 
agreement  in  continuing  it.  Occasionally  propositions 
have  been  made  to  substitute  eight  or  six  years,  but  they 
have  obtained  little  support. 

It  is  apparent  that  evils  might  arise  and  additional 
legislation  be  required  in  less  than  eight  or  even  six  years. 
Were  the  term  fixed  at  either  of  these  periods,  the  result 
might  be  disastrous  to  the  peace  or  the  growth  of  the 
Church.  This  might  necessitate  frequent  convening  of 
extra  sessions  for  a  special  purjiose,  at  great  expense, 
and  often  under  excitement.  Yet,  if  the  General  Con- 
ference were  to  assemble  yearly — as  is  the  case  with  the 
Presbyterian  General  Assembly,  which  has  limited  legis- 
lative powers,  all  important  enactments  requiring  the 
votes  of  a  majority  of  the  Presbyteries  before  taking 
effect — the  expense  would  be  intolerable,  and,  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  being  the  sole  legislative  body,  the  Church 
would  be  continually  agitated,  and  any  or  every  law 
146 


GENERAL  CONFERENCE  DATES  AND  METHODS  147 

become  a  battle  center  for  the  defeated  party  in  the  hope 
of  speedy  repeal  or  radical  modification.  The  present 
rule  is  the  golden  mean  between  the  extremes  of  useless 
or  harmful  frequency  and  a  hazardous  length  of  interval. 

SUITABILITY  OF  MAY  FOR  THE  CONFERENCE  QUESTIONED 

The  fitness  of  the  month  of  May  was  questioned  in 
1832,  when  on  the  25th  day  of  that  month  Daniel 
Ostrander,  of  Kew  York,  seconded  by  William  Winans 
of  Mississippi,  oflfered  this  preamble  and  resolution : 

Whereas,  Great  inconveniences  have  been  experienced,  and 
always  must  be  experienced,  when  the  General  Conference  com- 
mences its  session  on  the  first  day  of  May,  on  account  of  many 
of  the  delegates,  especially  from  the  North  and  East,  having  to 
start  in  a  season  when  the  winter  is  just  breaking  up,  and  the 
roads  very  bad,  and  when  the  navigation  is  still  obstructed  by 
ice;  and. 

Whereas,  It  is  believed  that  it  is  perfectly  within  the  province 
of  this  Conference  to  vary  the  time  of  its  meeting,  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  the  next  General  Conference  will  commence 
its  session  on  the  first  day  of  June  instead  of  the  first  day  of 
May.' 

The  resolutions  were  tabled.  Either  the  Conference 
was  not  dissatisfied  with  May,  or  believed  that  it  had  no 
right  to  make  any  change  in  the  constitutional  provision 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  ministers  in  the  Annual 
Conferences.  The  presumption  is  that  both  elements  were 
involved,  for  Ostrander  and  Winans  were  influential. 
The  former  had  been  in  every  Conference  from,  and  in- 
cluding, that  of  1808.  Winans  had  been  in  the  Conference 
of  1828,  and  in  this  Conference  was  the  leader  of  his 
delegation.  A  resolution  proposed  by  such  men  would  not 
have  been  disposed  of  so  cavalierly  without  some  obstacle 
other  than  that  "the  resolution  was  in  the  way  of  other 
business." 

The  month  is  the  best  that  could  possibly  be  selected, 

•General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  413. 


148  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


following  the  harshness  of  spring  and  preceding  the 
languorous  heat  of  summer,  and,  with  respect  to  the 
sessions  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  immediately  after 
the  spring  and  not  too  near  the  fall. 

The  provision  fixing  the  first  da}'  of  May  for  the  open- 
ing of  the  General  Conference  remained  undisturbed  until 
the  West  Wisconsin  Conference,  in  the  interval  between 
the  General  Conferences  of  1892  and  189G,  passed  the 
following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Bishops  presiding  in  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  during  the  year  1894  are  hereby  respectfully  re- 
quested to  submit  to  all  the  Annual  Conferences  the  following 
proposition,  namely:  To  amend  Paragraph  63  of  the  Discipline 
of  1892  so  that  it  shall  read  as  follows,  to  wit: 

"H  63.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  Wednes- 
day of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1900,  and  thenceforward  on 
the  first  Wednesday  in  May  once  in  four  years  perpetually,  at 
such  hour  and  in  such  place  in  the  United  States  as  the  General 
Conference  may  from  time  to  time  direct;  but  the  General  Su- 
perintendents, or  a  majority  of  them,  by  and  with  the  advice  of 
two  thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  shall  have  power  to 
call  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Conference,  to  be  constituted 
in  the  usual  way.  But  if  there  shall  be  no  General  Superin- 
tendent, then  two  thirds  of  the  Annual  Conferences  shall  have 
power  to  call  such  extra  session." 

The  resolution  was  duly  submitted  by  the  Bishop,  with 
the  result  that  8,663  votes  were  cast  in  favor  of  the  amend- 
ment and  167  against  it.  On  the  13th  day  of  May,  in 
the  General  Conference  of  1896,  the  report  on  the  action 
of  the  Annual  Conferences  was  acted  upon,  and  the 
change  in  the  Constitution  adopted  by  a  vote  of  397  ayes 
to  19  nays. 

METHOD  OF  CALLING  SPECIAL  GENERAL  CONFERENCES 

•The  constitutional  provision  was: 

The  General  Superintendents,  with  or  by  the  advice  of  all 
the  Annual  Conferences,  or  if  there  be  no  General  Superintendent, 


GENERAL  CONFERENCE  DATES  AND  METHODS  149 

all  the  Annual  Conferences  respectively,  shall  have  power  to 
call  a  General  Conference,  if  they  judge  necessary,  at  any  time. 

This  provision  remained  until  the  General  Conference 
of  1856.  At  the  opening  of  that  session  the  Bishops  in 
their  quadrennial  Address  to  the  Conference  thus  spoke 
concerning  this  rule: 

The  rule  requiring  the  concurrent  advice  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  to  authorize  the  Bishops  to  call  an  extra  session  of 
the  General  Conference,  we  think  unnecessarily  restrictive.  We 
have  now  thirty-eight  Annual  Conferences,  and  a  probability  of 
more;  yet  any  one  of  them,  though  the  least  of  all,  might  defeat 
the  wishes  of  all  the  others  in  regard  to  an  extra  session,  what- 
ever might  be  the  necessity  for  it.  We  respectfully  suggest  that 
any  state  of  affairs  which  would  satisfy  three  fourths  or  even 
two  thirds  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  the  Bishops,  that  an 
extra  session  of  the  General  Conference  was  really  necessary, 
should  be  deemed  a  suflScient  reason  for  calling  it.' 

This  passage  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Revis- 
als  and  Unfinished  Business,  which  reported  as  follows: 

The  committee  having  duly  considered  that  part  of  the 
Bishops'  Address  which  relates  to  the  call  of  an  extra  session 
of  the  General  Conference,  recommend  the  insertion  of  the  fol- 
lowing in  Part  1,  Chapter  iii.  Section  2,  Answer  2,  in  place  of 
our  present  provision  for  calling  an  extra  session  of  the  General 
Conference: 

"But  the  General  Superintendents,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
with  the  advice  of  two  thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  or, 
if  there  be  no  General  Superintendent,  two  thirds  of  all  the 
Annual  Conferences,  shall  have  power  to  call  an  extra  session 
of  the  General  Conference  at  any  time,  to  be  constituted  in  the 
usual  way.'" 

There  is  no  evidence  that  this  change  was  submitted 
to  the  Annual  Conferences.  It  was,  therefore,  clearly  a 
usurpation  of  power  by  the  Conference  to  enact  it  and 
an  imposition  upon  the  Church  to  change  its  Discipline 
without  authority.^ 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1856,  vol.  iii,  193. 
^General  Conference  Journal,  1856,  vol.  iii.  p.  153. 

'Through  neglect,  no  report  of  the  discussion  of  this  subject  appears  in  the 
DaUy  Advocate  for  1856. 


150  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


This  rule,  as  thus  unconstitutionally  amended,  re- 
mained with  only  verbal  changes  until  the  revision  of 
the  entire  Constitution. 

REVISED  CONSTITUTION  ON  TIMES  AND  CALLING  OF  GENERAL 
CONFERENCES 

As  found  in  the  Discipline,  all  the  regulations  concern- 
ing the  times  and  calling  of  sessions  of  the  General  Confer- 
ences, regular  or  extra,  in  force  at  the  present  time  are 
comprised  in  the  three  sections  of  Paragraph  41,  Part  2 
of  Division  3  of  the  Constitution,  entitled  "Articles  of 
Organization  and  Government." 

Article  V.  Sessions 

If  41,  §  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  at  10  o'clock 
on  the  morning  of  the  first  Wednesday  in  the  month  of  May,  in 
every  fourth  year  from  the  date  of  the  first  Delegated  General 
Conference — namely,  the  year  of  our  Lord  1812 — and  at  such 
place  in  the  United  States  of  America  as  shall  have  been  deter- 
mined by  the  preceding  General  Conference,  or  by  a  Commission 
to  be  appointed  quadrennially  by  the  General  Conference,  and 
acting  under  its  authority;  which  Commission  shall  have  power 
also  in  case  of  emergency  to  change  the  place  for  the  meeting 
of  the  General  Conference,  a  majority  of  the  General  Superin- 
tendents concurring  in  such  change. 

§  2.  The  General  Superintendents,  or  a  majority  of  them,  by 
and  with  the  advice  of  two  thirds  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences, 
shall  have  the  power  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Con- 
ference at  any  time,  constituted  in  the  usual  way;  such  session  to 
be  held  at  such  time  and  place  as  a  majority  of  the  General  Sup- 
erintendents, and  also  of  the  above  Commission,  shall  designate. 

§  3.  In  case  of  a  great  emergency  two  thirds  of  the  General 
Superintendents  may  call  special  sessions  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, at  such  time  and  place  as  they  may  think  wise,  to 
determine  the  question  of  an  extra  session  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, or  to  elect  delegates  thereto.  They  may  also,  in  such 
cases,  call  extra  sessions  of  the  Lay  Electoral  Conferences  for 
the  purpose  of  electing  Lay  Delegates  to  the  General  Conference. 

The  provision  has  been  omitted  which  formerly  existed, 
"in  case  there  be  no  General  Superintendent." 


CHAPTER  XXI 


The  General  Conference  Ready  for  Business 

For  many  years,  the  method  of  organizing  a  General 
Conference  was  simplicity  itself.  The  senior  Bishop  con- 
ducted religious  worship. 

The  Journal  of  the  last  undelegated  Conference  of  1808 
thus  describes  the  opening:  "Conference  met  at  half -past 
eight  o'clock.  Francis  Asbury,  President.  Members 
present  as  follows :  .  .  ."  As  all  preachers  except 
''novices"  could  attend,  there  was  no  trouble  concerning 
credentials.  The  record  of  the  opening  of  the  first  dele- 
gated Conference  is:  "The  delegated  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  assembled  in  the  city  of  New  York,  agreeably 
to  a  resolution  of  the  General  Conference  of  1808.  Bishop 
Asbury  opened  Conference.  William  M.  Kennedy  was  ap- 
pointed Secretary  pro  tern.  The  forenoon  was  occupied 
in  calling  for  and  reading  the  certificates  of  the  delegates 
from  the  several  Annual  Conferences."  In  the  afternoon 
the  record  of  the  session  is:  "Conference  met,  agreeably 
to  adjournment,  and  resumed  the  further  examination 
of  certificates  of  the  delegates,  in  order  to  organize  them- 
selves." 

Not  till  1832  was  the  secretary  of  the  last  General  Con- 
ference "requested  by  the  chair  to  call  the  list  of  the 
delegates  present."  This  has  been  the  method  until  the 
present  time.  Prior  to  the  revision  of  1900-04,  there 
was  no  constitutional  prescription  concerning  organiza- 
tion.  The  order  now  is, 

Aeticle  VII.  Organization 

If  43.    When  the  time  for  opening  the  General  Conference 
arrives  the  presiding  officer  shall  take  the  chair,  and  direct  the 
151 


152  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


secretary  of  the  preceding  General  Conference,  or  in  his  abseace 
one  of  his  assistants,  to  call  the  roll  of  the  delegates-elect.  Those 
•who  have  been  duly  returned  shall  be  recognized  as  members, 
their  certificates  of  election  being  prima  facie  evidence  of  their 
right  to  membership;  provided,  however,  that  in  case  of  a  chal- 
lenge of  any  person  thus  enrolled,  such  challenge  being  signed 
by  at  least  six  delegates  from  the  territory  of  as  many  different 
Annual  Conferences,  three  such  delegates  being  ministers,  and 
three  laymen,  the  person  so  challenged  shall  not  participate  in 
the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference,  except  to  speak  on 
his  own  case,  until  the  question  of  his  right  shall  have  been 
decided.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  the  judge  of  the  elec- 
tion, returns,  and  qualifications  of  its  own  members.^ 

The  calling  of  the  roll  being  ended,  the  Bishop  announces 
a  quorum  present,  and  the  Conference  is  ready  for  busi- 
ness. 

"powers"  and  quorum 
The  body  thus  organized  is  not  bound  except  by  the 
Constitution.  All  that  its  predecessors  have  done  in  legis- 
lating, except  in  constitution-making^  it  has  power  to 
repeal.  And  this  unique  body,  which,  like  its  forerunners, 
must  speedily  die  and  have  no  resurrection,  can  enact  all 
imaginable  "rules  and  regulations"  not  forbidden  in  the 
organic  law. 

"Full  power"  is  so  capacious  a  phrase  that  it  certainly 
requires  "limitations"  and  "restrictions"  competent  to 
maintain  the  solidity  of  the  foundations  of  the  Church, 
but  not  so  narrowing  as  to  destroy  or  diminish  the  true 
liberty  of  Christian  men. 

To  these  salutary  checks  close  attention  must  be  given 
by  legislators,  and  also  by  all  interpreters.  For  a  false 
interpretation  may  make  a  good  law  of  none  effect,  or 
transform  a  reasonable  limitation  into  an  instrument  of 
intolerable  oppression. 

The  original  regulation  for  the  quorum  reads: 

At  all  times,  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it  shall 


^Discipline,  1908,  pp.  43,  44. 


GENERAL  CONFERENCE  READY  FOR  BUSINESS  153 


take  two  thirds  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences to  make  a  quorum  for  transacting  business. 

This  rule  remained  intact  until  the  revision  of  the  Con- 
stitution.   Its  present  form  is  (italics  added)  : 

Article  VIII 

f  44.  When  the  General  Conference  is  in  session  it  shall  re- 
quire the  presence  of  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  dele- 
gates to  constitute  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business; 
but  a  less  number  may  take  a  recess  or  adjourn  from  day  to  day 
in  order  to  secure  a  quorum,  and  at  the  final  session  may  approve 
the  Journal,  order  the  record  of  the  roll  call,  and  adjourn  sine 
die} 

In  every  legislative  body  at  least  two  thirds  of  all 
elected  should  be  necessary  to  a  quorum.  Were  a  less 
number  allowed,  a  small  minority  might  greatly  wrong 
their  constituents  by  neglect,  folly,  or  the  intentional 
making  of  disastrous  changes.  Even  under  this  rule 
a  majority  equal  to  one  third  of  the  delegates  plus  one 
could  bind  the  Church  for  four  years. 

General  practice  justifies  what  is  allowed  to  a  less 
number  than  a  quorum,  and  there  is  a  reason  for  each 
of  the  additions.  The  record  of  the  roll  call  is  a  premium 
on  fidelity  and  an  individual  indorsement  of  the  integ- 
rity of  the  Journal. 

PRESIDENCY 

The  Constitution,  as  first  formed,  provided  for  the  presi- 
dency by  the  following  direction:  "One  of  the  General 
Superintendents  shall  preside  in  the  General  Conference; 
but  in  case  no  General  Superintendent  be  present  the 
General  Conference  shall  choose  a  president  pro  tempore." 
No  change  was  made  or  proposed  in  this  provision,  which 
appears  in  the  Discipline  of  1900  precisely  as  in  the  origi- 
nal.   In  the  revision  of  the  Constitution  the  same  prin- 

^DiacipUne.  1908,  p.  44. 


154  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ciple  remains  untouched,  but  two  important  additions 
are  made.  The  Revised  Constitution  on  this  important 
point  is  in  three  sections : 

Article  VI.    Presiding  Officers 

\  42,  §  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  elect  by  ballot  from 
among  the  traveling  elders  as  many  General  Superintendents 
as  it  may  deem  necessary. 

§  2.  The  General  Superintendents  shall  preside  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  in  such  order  as  they  may  determine;  but  if  no 
General  Superintendent  be  present,  the  General  Conference  shall 
elect  one  of  its  members  to  preside  pro  tempore. 

§  3.  The  presiding  officer  of  the  General  Conference  shall 
decide  questions  of  order,  subject  to  an  appeal  to  the  General 
Conference;  but  questions  of  law  shall  be  decided  by  the  General 
Conference.* 

The  provision  that  the  Bishops  shall  preside  "in  such 
order  as  they  may  determine"  is  very  useful,  as  it  enables 
them,  in  a  time  of  excitement  or  the  discussion  of  intri- 
cate questions,  to  choose  the  one  best  qualified  to  pre- 
side. 

The  third  paragraph  is  a  valuable  addition  to  the 
organic  law,  though  no  new  principle  or  practice  is  in- 
volved. It  teaches  the  Conference  its  rights  and  duty  and 
the  presiding  officer  his  powers  and  limitations. 

The  prerogative  of  presiding  does  not  inhere  in  the 
office  of  Bishop.  As  the  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States  does  not  preside  in  the  Senate  by  virtue  of  the  fact 
that  he  is  the  Vice-President,  but  because  the  Constitu- 
tion so  provides,  so  the  Bishop  presides  in  the  General 
Conference  because  the  Constitution  expressly  declares 
that  "a  General  Superintendent,  if  present,  shall  preside." 
Before  the  Constitution  was  formed  the  successive  Gen- 
eral Conferences  had  the  power  to  elect  their  own  presi- 
dents. Hence  this  provision,  incapable  of  being  mis- 
understood, was  imbedded  in  the  very  foundation  of  the 

i  Discipline,  1908.  p.  43. 


GENERAL  CONFERENCE  DATES  AND  METHODS  155 

legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  "power  house"  which 
the  architects  of  1808  were  constructing. 

That  a  Bishop  shall  preside  is  a  wise  measure.  Had 
the  election  of  a  president  been  left  to  the  action  of  suc- 
cessive Conferences,  the  session  would  begin  with  a 
struggle  for  the  office,  which  might  be  protracted  and 
incendiary,  and  the  member  elected  might,  and  doubtless 
often  would  be,  the  representative  of  a  party.  Whereas, 
under  the  existing  system,  the  Conference  proceeds  at 
once  with  a  composure  and  dignity  similar  to  that  with 
which  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  opened.  The 
hot  contests  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  which  elects 
one  of  its  members  Speaker,  illustrate  the  difficulties  with 
which  the  Conference  would  have  to  deal;  for  it  has 
taken  a  longer  time  to  elect  one  of  the  Speakers  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  than  the  General  Conference 
consumes  in  its  entire  session. 

The  fact  that  the  Bishops  in  their  turn,  when  present, 
are  the  only  constitutional  presiding  officers  of  the  body 
develops  and  maintains  a  generation  of  parliamentarians. 
Some  have  natural  gifts  superior  to  others,  but  consul- 
tation and  harmony  of  views  and  decisions,  with  only 
occasional  differences,  result. 

The  rule,  that  in  case  no  General  Superintendent  be 
present,  the  General  Conference  shall  choose  a  president 
pro  tempore,  involves  more  than  is  at  first  glance  per- 
ceived. Suppose  the  day  and  hour  for  opening  a  regular 
or  special  General  Conference  arrives,  and  a  constitu- 
tional quorum  is  present,  but  no  Bishop;  without  this 
provision  no  organization  could  be  effected,  no  business 
transacted.  But  under  this  rule  a  president  could  be 
elected,  who  would  have  all  the  powers  possessed  by  a 
Bishop  until  one  should  come.  Should  none  appear,  the 
proceedings  could  continue  until,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Conference,  all  the  necessary  business  should  have  been 


156  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

transacted,  and  the  Conference  finally  adjourned.  The 
one  elected,  as  a  member  of  the  Conference,  in  case  of  a 
tie,  would  have  the  right  to  give  the  casting  vote. 

It  will  be  observed  that,  as  originally  framed,  in  the 
letter  of  this  law  there  is  no  specification,  that  the  one 
elected  pro  tempore  should  be  a  member  of  the  body.  For 
this  reason  the  Constitution  was  changed  at  the  time  of 
revision  so  as  to  read :  "but  if  no  General  Superintendent 
be  present,  the  General  Conference  shall  elect  one  of  its 
members  to  preside  pro  tempore'^ 


CHAPTER  XXII 


The  First  Restrictive  Rule 
doctrines 

"The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  nor 
change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new 
standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present 
existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine." 

This  rule  is  of  the  greatest  importance,  and  therefore 
was  the  first  enacted.  For  it  is  the  sole  protection  of 
the  Gospel  as  interpreted  by  the  founders  of  Methodism, 
and  preached  with  unction  and  effect  almost  equaling 
that  of  the  apostles. 

The  "Articles  of  Religion,''  therein  refered  to,  were 
prepared  and  sent  to  this  continent  by  John  Wesley  at 
the  time  when  his  societies  were  transformed  into  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Several  he  took  without 
change  from  the  thirty-nine  "Articles  of  Religion"  of  the 
Church  of  England,  of  which  he  was  a  presbyter  until 
his  death;  some  he  took  only  in  part,  some  he  altered,  and 
nearly  a  third  he  omitted. 

The  Articles  entitled  "Of  Faith  in  the  Holy  Trinity," 
"Of  the  Word  or  Son  of  God,  who  was  made  very  Man," 
"Of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,"  "Of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
"Of  the  Old  Testament,"  "Of  Free  Will,"  "Of  the 
Justification  of  Man,"  "Of  Good  Works,"  "Of  Works 
of  Supererogation,"  "Of  Sin  after  Justification,"  "Of 
Purgatory,"  "Of  Speaking  in  the  Congregation  in 
such  a  Tongue  as  the  People  understand,"  "Of  the  Sacra- 
ments," "Of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  "Of  both  Kinds," 
"Of  the  one  Oblation  of  Christ,  finished  upon  the 
Cross,"  "Of  the  Marriage  of  Ministers,"  "Of  the  Rites 
and  Ceremonies  of  Churches,"  "Of  Christian  Men's 
157 


158  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Goods,"  and  "Of  a  Christian  Man's  Oath"  were  adopted, 
with  slight  verbal  changes  and  minor  omissions. 

The  Articles  entitled  "Of  the  Sufflciency  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  for  Salvation,"  "Of  Original  or  Birth  Sin," 
"Of  the  Church,"  and  "Of  Baptism"  were  retained  with 
considerable  omissions. 

The  following  were  rejected:  "Of  the  Going  down  of 
Christ  into  Hell,"  "Of  the  Three  Creeds,"  "Of  Works 
before  Justification,"  "Of  Christ  alone  without  Sin,"  "Of 
Predestination  and  Election,"  "Of  Obtaining  External 
Salvation  only  by  the  Name  of  Christ,"  "Of  the  Authority 
of  the  Church,"  "Of  the  Authority  of  General  Councils," 
"Of  Ministering  in  the  Congregation,"  "Of  the  Unworthi- 
ness  of  the  Ministers  which  Hinders  not  the  Effect  of  the 
Sacraments,"  "Of  the  Wicked  which  Eat  not  the  Body 
of  Christ  in  the  Use  of  the  Lord's  Supper,"  "Of  Excom- 
municate Persons,  how  they  are  to  be  avoided,"  "Of  the 
Homilies,"  "Of  Consecration  of  Bishops  and  Ministers," 
"Of  the  Civil  Magistrates." 

Wesley  inserted  in  the  Liturgy  which  he  prepared  for 
the  American  Methodists,  a  Prayer  "For  the  Supreme 
Rulers  of  the  United  States"  in  the  Order  for  Morning 
Prayer,  which  comes  after  the  Third  Collect : 

Then  these  Prayers  following  are  to  be  read.  A  Prayer  for 
the  Supreme  Rulers.  "O  Lord  our  Heavenly  Father,  high  and 
mighty,  King  of  Kings,  Lord  of  Lords,  the  only  ruler  of  princes, 
who  dost  from  thy  throne  behold  all  the  dwellers  upon  earth; 
we  most  heartily  beseech  thee,  with  thy  favor  to  behold  the 
Supreme  Rulers  of  these  United  States,  and  so  replenish  them 
with  the  grace  of  thy  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  may  always  incline 
to  thy  will,  and  walk  in  thy  way;  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord." 

This  was  printed  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  ;  but  at  the  time  that  the  Church 
was  organized  an  Article  suited  to  the  new  situation  was 
adopted. 


THE  FIRST  RESTRICTIVE  RULE  159 

The  Prayer  Book  sent  over  by  Wesley  was  printed  in 
England,  but  in  the  next  edition,  which  appeared  in  178G, 
the  Article  entitled  "Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States 
of  America"  was  as  follows: 

The  Congress,  the  General  Assemblies,  the  Governors  and  the 
Councils  of  State,  as  the  Delegates  of  the  People,  are  the  Rulers 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  according  to  the  division  of 
power  made  to  them  by  the  General  Act  of  Confederation  and 
by  the  Constitutions  of  their  respective  States.  And  the  said 
States  ought  not  to  be  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction. 

The  following  Note  was  added : 

As  far  as  it  respects  civil  affairs,  we  believe  it  the  duty  of 
Christians,  and  especially  of  all  Christian  ministers,  to  be  sub- 
ject to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  country  where  they  may 
reside,  and  to  use  all  laudable  means  to  enjoin  obedience  to  the 
powers  that  be,  and  therefore  it  is  expected  that  all  our  preachers 
and  people,  who  may  be  under  British  or  any  other  government, 
will  behave  themselves  as  peaceable  and  orderly  subjects. 

After  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  the  words  "The  President"  were  placed  before 
the  words  "the  Congress,"  and  the  "Constitution  of  the 
United  States"  was  substituted  for  "the  General  Act  of 
Confederation." 

A  comparison  between  the  thirty-nine  and  the  twenty- 
five  Articles  is  instructive.  The  object  of  Wesley  was  to 
expurgate  the  leaven  of  ritualism,  Calvinism,  and 
Romanism.  The  dictum  of  Bishop  Harris  that  the 
Articles  of  Religion  "are  specially  and  strictly  Armin- 
ian  in  all  points  which  distinguish  evangelical  Arminian- 
ism  from  Calvinism"  is  sustained  by  the  radical  changes 
and  the  significant  omissions. 

"Wesley's  opinions  on  the  specific  virtue  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  especially  on  'Baptismal  Regeneration,'  have," 
says  Stevens,  "been  pronounced  vague,  if  not  contradic- 
tory."  He  adds: 

His  early  intimations  on  these  subjects  are  favorable  to  the 
views  of  High  Churchmen;  his  later,  unfavorable  to  them.  It 


160  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


must  be  remembered  that  he  began  bis  career  a  strenuous  High 
Churchman,  and,  though  he  manfully  broke  away  from  many 
of  his  early  errors,  yet  on  the  questions  of  baptismal  regenera- 
tion and  the  consequent  condition  of  baptized  infants,  it  has  been 
supposed  that  he  remained  ambiguous  to  the  last.' 

The  changes  he  made  in  the  Articles  of  Religion  nega- 
tively, as  Stevens  remarks,  decide  this  question.  Num- 
ber 25  of  the  English  Articles  declares  the  sacraments 
to  "be  certain,  sure  witnesses  and  effectual  signs  of  grace, 
and  God's  good  will  toward  us,  by  the  which  he  doth 
work  invisibly  in  us."  Wesley  eliminated  "sure"  and 
"effectual."  The  27th  Article  declares  baptism  to  be  "a 
sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth,  whcrehy  as  'by  an 
imtrument,  they  that  receive  baptism  rightly  are  grafted 
into  the  Church;  the  promises  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  and 
of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Eoly  Ghost, 
are  visibly  signed  and  sealed;  and  faith  is  confirmed  and 
grace  increased  by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God."  All  after 
the  "new  birth"  was  stricken  out.  The  16th  Anglican 
Article  is  entitled  "Of  Sin  after  Baptism."  Wesley 
changed  it  to  "Of  Sin  after  Justification."  The  Article 
reads,  "Not  every  deadly  sin  willingly  committed  after 
Baptism,"  etc.  From  this  Wesley  removed  "baptism"  and 
inserted  "justification."  The  Article  declares  that  "the 
grace  of  repentance  is  not  to  be  denied  to  such  as  fall 
into  sin  after  baptism."  Wesley  again  substituted  "justi- 
fication" for  "baptism." 

These  changes  could  not  have  been  made  by  one  who 
held  to  baptismal  regeneration,  or  by  any  who  believed 
that  one  could  not  be  "justified"  without  baptism. 

The  twenty-five  Articles  of  Religion  certainly  connect 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  with  that  chain  of  funda- 
mentals, which  from  the  earliest  times,  though  heavily 
strained,  has  not  broken.  They  affirm  the  Trinity  in 
Unity,  the  Union  in  Christ  of  God  and  Man,  His  Cruci- 

^History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  ii,  p.  207. 


THE  FIRST  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


161 


fixion,  Death  and  Burial,  and  the  Vital  Relation  of  his 
Sufferings  and  Death  to  Forgiveness  of  Sins.  They  affirm 
his  Resurrection  and  Ascension  as  objective  facts;  and 
prophesy  the  Judgment  of  all  Men  at  the  Last  Day.  They 
declare  the  Sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  Salva- 
tion, and  name  the  Canonical  Books.  They  maintain  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  things  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, and  defend  the  Old  Testament  from  denial  or 
desecration.  They  teach  the  Inability  of  Man,  without 
the  aid  of  the  Spirit,  to  keep  the  law  of  God,,  and  his 
consequent  Need  of  Regeneration.  They  contain  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification  by  Faith  only;  and  avoid  Antino- 
mian  license  by  implying  that  without  good  works  there 
is  no  proof  of  a  lively  faith.  They  justify  the  Reforma- 
tion by  denying  the  existence  of  works  of  supereroga- 
tion. They  offer  hope  to  every  repentant  sinner,  even 
though  after  justification  he  has  fallen  into  sin.  They 
do  not  justify  those  who  say  ''they  can  no  more  sin  as 
long  as  they  live  here,"  or  those  who  deny  forgiveness 
to  such  as  truly  repent.  They  affirm  that  the  congrega- 
tions "of  faithful  men  in  which  the  pure  Word  of  God  is 
preached,  and  Sacraments  duly  administered  according 
to  Christ's  ordinance,"  whatever  the  sign  or  name,  to  be 
the  visible  Church  of  Christ.  They  repel  the  doctrine  of 
Purgatory;  disapprove  the  administering  of  the  sacra- 
ments and  the  offering  of  prayers  in  the  Church  in  a 
tongue  not  understood  by  the  people.  They  accept  the 
two  sacraments  ordained  of  Christ,  but  not  the  five 
humanly  appointed  alleged  sacraments.  They  speak 
clearly  against  the  superstitious  worshiping  of  them. 

Baptism  is  ordained  for  adults  and  children.  They 
reject  transubstantiation,  but  revere  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  teaching  that  the  means  whereby 
Christ's  body  is  received  and  eaten  in  the  Supper  is  faith, 
and  that  it  is  partaken  of  only  "after  a  heavenly  and 


162  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

spiritual  manner."  They  affirm  that  the  refusal  of  the 
cup  to  lay  people  is  without  scriptural  authority.  Also 
they  maintain  that  the  "sacrifice  of  masses  is  a  dangerous 
deceit."  The  marriage  of  ministers  is  justified,  but  not 
commanded. 

In  dealing  with  Christian  men's  goods  and  Christian 
men's  oaths  and  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church, 
the  Articles  of  Religion  protect  the  individual  and  society. 

Nevertheless,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  do  not 
contain  special  reference  to  some  of  the  most  precious 
doctrines  held  by  the  Founder  of  Methodism  and  by  the 
Churches  that  derive  their  existence  from  the  preaching, 
teaching,  and  example  of  those  whom  he  instructed. 

The  Restrictive  Rule  provides  not  only  that  the  General 
Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  nor  change  our  Articles 
of  Religion,  but  that  it  "shall  not  establish  any  new 
standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present 
existing  established  standards  of  doctrine." 

THE  STANDARDS 

The  vital  question  is:  What  are  those  Standards? 

The  first  Conference  held  in  the  United  States,  after 
declaring  that  the  authority  of  Wesley  and  the  English 
Conference  extended  to  the  preachers  and  people  in 
America,  affirmed  that  "the  doctrine  and  discipline  of 
the  Methodists,  as  contained  in  the  Minutes,"  was  to  be 
the  "sole  rule  of  the  Methodist  preachers  who  labored  in 
the  connection  with  Mr.  Wesley  in  America." 

At  the  Conference  of  1780  an  order  was  given  to  the 
Assistant  "that  all  the  deeds  be  drawn  in  substance  after 
that  in  the  printed  Minutes.  The  deed  contained  in  these 
English  or  "printed"  Minutes  especially  named  "Wesley's 
four  volumes  of  Sermons"  and  his  Notes  on  the  New 
Testament  as  the  doctrinal  Standards  of  Methodism.  And 
this  trust  deed  has  been  in  existence  since  1763. 


THE  FIRST  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


163 


In  the  Conference  of  1781,  the  first  question  is,  "What 
preachers  are  now  determined,  after  matiire  considera- 
tion, close  observation,  and  earnest  prayer,  to  preach  the 
old  Methodist  doctrine,  and  strictly  enforce  the  discipline, 
as  contained  in  the  Notes,  Sermons,  and  Minutes  pub- 
lished by  Mr.  Wesley,  so  far  as  they  respect  both  preach- 
ers and  people,  according  to  the  knowledge  we  have  of 
them,  and  the  ability  of  God  shall  give  .  .  .  ?"  The 
thirty-nine  preachers  assembled  in  the  Conference  sub- 
scribed their  names  to  an  aflBrmative  answer. 

In  1784,  at  the  Conference  held  previous  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  twenty-first 
question  is  this:  "How  shall  we  conduct  ourselves  toward 
European  preachers?"  The  answer  was:  '"If  they  are 
recommended  by  Mr.  Wesley,  will  be  subject  to  the  Ameri- 
can Conference,  preach  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  four 
volumes  of  Scnnons  and  Xotcs  on  the  Xew  Testament, 
.  .  ."  (the  rest  of  the  answer  refers  to  the  DiseipUne) , 
"we  will  receive  them,  but  if  they  walk  contrary  to  the 
above  direction,  no  ancient  rite  or  appointment  shall 
prevent  their  being  excluded  from  our  connection." 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  year  1784  and  the  early  part 
of  1785  the  societies  were  organized  into  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  a  Form  of  Discipline  for  the 
government  of  the  Church  was  adopted.  This  was  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  the  Large  Minutes  of  the  Confer- 
ence of  Wesley,  the  chief  alterations  being  such  as  were 
needful  to  the  situation  in  America. 

There  were  various  indirect  references  to  the  Standards 
of  doctrine  in  the  Discipline  issued  after  the  foundation 
of  the  Church.  In  the  year  1789  the  fifth  edition  was  pub- 
lished. Appended  to  it  were  the  Articles  of  Religion  and 
Doctrinal  Tracts.  The  Doctrinal  Tracts  were  severally 
entitled :  "Scripture  Doctrine  of  Predestination,  Election, 
and  Reprobation,"  by  the  Rev.  John  Wesley;  "Serious 


164  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Thoughts  on  the  Infallible,  Unconditional  Perseverance 
of  all  that  have  experienced  Faith  in  Christ";  "A  Plain 
Account  of  Christian  Perfection,"  as  believed  and  taught 
by  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  from  the  year  1725  to  the  year 
1765.  These  tracts  were  inserted  in  the  subsequent  edi- 
tions of  the  Discipline,  except  that  of  1796,  until  1812, 
after  which  they  were  omitted. 

The  question  has  arisen  whether  these  Doctrinal  Tracts 
were  included  in  the  other  existing  Standards.  But  as 
they  were  not  recognized  as  Standards  by  Wesley  or  by 
the  Wesleyan  body,  and  as  the  Sermons  of  Wesley 
were  specified,  and  also  his  Notes;  and  the  Conference  of 
1808  kncAv  this  to  be  the  fact,  and  as  they  also  knew  that 
Wesley  had  sent  over  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  said 
nothing  whatever  about  the  Doctrinal  Tracts,  the  most 
natural  conclusion  is  that  it  was  not  intended  to  regard 
them  as  Standards.  Nevertheless,  like  the  "Notes"  written 
by  Asbury  and  Coke,  they  were  valuable  "advices"  so 
far  as  they  discussed  subjects  harmonious  with  and 
explanatory  of  the  general  doctrines  and  principles  of 
Methodism.  This  seems  the  more  reasonable  as  little  or 
no  proof  can  be  adduced  that  they  were  ever  regarded  as 
official  Standards. 

The  London  edition  of  Wesley's  Sermons  was  published 
in  two  volumes,  under  the  editorial  supervision  of  Dr. 
Jabez  Bunting,  and  republished  by  the  Book  Concern  in 
New  York.  In  that  edition,  the  Sermons  referred  to  are 
the  first  fifty-three  of  the  first  volume,  beginning  with 
the  discourse  on  "Salvation  by  Faith"  and  concluding 
with  the  sermon  on  "the  death  of  Mr.  Whitefield." 

Further  light  may  be  thrown  upon  these  questions  by 
the  following  facts:  On  February  28,  1874,  a  deed  was 
"enrolled  in  chancery  under  the  hand  and  seal  of  the 
said  John  Wesley,  and  specified  by  name  therein,"  that 
the  trustees  of  Methodist  chapels,  while  he,  Wesley,  lived 


THE  FIRST  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


1G5 


and  after  his  decease  should  "at  all  times  forever"  "per- 
mit such  persons  and  no  others  as  shall  be  appointed 
at  the  yearly  Conference  of  the  people  called  Methodists 
.  .  .  to  have  and  to  enjoy  the  said  premises  for  the 
purposes  aforesaid :  provided  always,  that  the  persons 
preach  no  other  doctrine  than  is  contained  in  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's Kotes  on  the  New  Testament,  and  four  volumes  of 
Sermons." 

This  deed  has  been  modified  by  the  Wesleyan  Church, 
but  contains  this  provision:  "No  person  or  persons  who- 
soever shall  at  any  time  hereafter  be  permitted  to  preach 
or  expound  God's  Holy  Word,  or  to  perform  any  of  the 
general  acts  of  religious  worship  in  the  building  or  any 
part  of  the  premises,  nor  in  or  upon  the  appurtenances 
thereunto  belonging,  .  .  .  who  shall  maintain,  promul- 
gate, or  teach  any  doctrine  or  practice,  contrary  to  what 
is  contained  in  Xotcs  on  the  Xew  Testament  commonly 
reputed  to  be  the  Notes  of  the  said  John  Wesley,  and  in 
the  first  four  volumes  of  Sermons  commonly  reputed  to 
be  written  and  published  by  him." 

Various  discrepancies  have  been  pointed  out  with 
respect  to  the  number  of  these  Sermons.  The  Wesleyan 
Methodist  Church  of  England  and  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  recognize  fifty-three;  the  Methodist  Chiirch 
of  Canada  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
recognize  but  fifty-two,  omitting  the  fifty-third,  which 
was  upon  the  death  of  George  Whitefield,  for  the  reason 
that  at  the  time  (1763)  when  the  four  volumes  were  in- 
serted, by  name,  in  the  Model  Deed,  Whitefield  was  liv- 
ing. Further,  R.  J.  Cooke  (on  the  basis  of  the  fact  that 
after  Wesley  inserted  the  four  volumes,  in  the  deed,  as 
above  stated,  he  added  ten  sermons  to  the  books)  assumes 
that  only  the  preceding  forty-three  should  be  included  in 
the  Standards. 

Concerning  the  Sermons,  Wesley  himself,  when  intro- 


166  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ducing  them  to  the  public,  said :  "The  following  Sermons 
contain  the  substance  of  what  I  have  been  preaching  for 
eight  or  nine  years  past.  During  that  time  I  have  fre- 
quently si)oken  in  public  on  every  subject  in  the  ensu- 
ing collection,  and  I  am  not  conscious  that  there  is  any 
one  point  of  doctrine,  on  which  I  am  accustomed  to  speak 
in  public,  which  is  not  incidentally  if  not  professedly  laid 
before  every  Christian  reader.  Every  serious  man  who 
peruses  these  will,  therefore,  see  in  the  clearest  manner 
what  these  doctrines  are  which  I  embrace  and  teach  as 
the  essentials  of  true  religion."  And  it  was  for  this  pur- 
pose that  Wesley  made  these  Sermons  so  large  and  so  vital 
a  part  of  his  doctrinal  Standards 

The  question  of  the  number  of  sermons  might  be  of 
more  importance  were  not  Wesley's  Notes  on  the  New 
Testament  included  in  the  Standards.  As  it  is,  all  the 
essential  truths  of  the  system  of  doctrine  on  which  Meth- 
odism depends  are  discussed  in  the  forty-three  discourses ; 
and  nothing  additional  of  doctrinal  value  is  contained 
in  the  appended  nine  or  ten 

In  addition  to  the  basal  doctrines  of  Christianity,  the 
distinctive  features  of  Methodism,  and  its  peculiar 
emphasis,  are  suggested  by  the  titles  of  these  sermons: 
"Salvation  by  Faith,"  "The  Almost  Christian,"  "Awake 
Thou  that  Sleepest,"  "Scriptural  Christianity,"  "Justifi- 
cation by  Faith,"  "The  Righteousness  of  Faith,"  "The 
Way  of  the  Kingdom,"  "The  First  Fruits  of  the  Spirit," 
"The  Spirit  of  Bondage  and  of  Adoption";  two  sermons 
on  "The  Witness  of  the  Spirit" ;  one  on  "The  Witness  of 
Our  Own  Spirit,"  "Of  Sin  in  Believers,"  "On  Repentance 
of  Believers,"  "The  Judgment,"  The  "Means  of  Grace," 
"The  Circumcision  of  the  Heart,"  "The  Mar)is  of  the  New 
Birth,"  "The  Great  Privilege  of  Those  that  Are  Born  of 
God,"  "The  Lord  Our  Righteousness";  thirteen  sermons 
on  "The  Sermon  on  the  Mount"  (the  third  being  on 


THE  FIRST  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


167 


"Blessed  Are  the  Pure  in  Heart"),  "The  Original  Nature, 
Properties  and  Use  of  the  Law";  two  sermons  on  "The 
Law"';  three  on  "Faith,"  The  "Nature  of  Enthusiasm";  A 
"Caution  against  Bigotry";  two  sermons  on  "The  Catho- 
lic Spirit";  the  fortieth  sermon  is  on  "Christian  Per- 
fection"; the  forty-first  on  "Wandering  Thoughts";  the 
forty-second  on  "Satan's  Devices";  the  forty-third  on 
"The  Scriptural  Way  of  Salvation."  The  ten  that  follow 
treat  respectively  "Original  Sin,"  "The  New  Birth,"  the 
"Wilderness  State,"  "Heaviness  through  Manifold  Temp- 
tations," "Self-Denial,"  the  "Cure  of  Evil-Speakiug," 
"Use  of  Money,"  "The  Good  Steward,"  the  "Reformation 
of  Manners" ;  the  fifty-third  is  "On  the  Death  of  the  Rev. 
George  Whitefield." 

It  is  to  be  observed  that  these  other  establisned 
Standards  supplement  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  gx» 
to  make  a  great  body  of  evangelical  and  Arminian 
doctrine. 

The  distinction  between  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  the 
other  existing  established  Standards  is  nowhere  more 
clearly  stated  than  by  Dr.  Burwash,  professor  of  Theology 
in  Victoria  College,  in  his  Introduction  to  Wesley's  Doc- 
trinal Standards: 

The  relation  in  which  Methodism  stood  to  the  Established 
Church  in  England  during  Mr.  Wesley's  life,  provided  for  the 
doctrinal  unity  of  Methodism  with  the  Protestant  Reformation. 
When,  in  the  United  States  of  America,  Methodism  became  an 
independent  Church,  the  same  provision  was  made  by  the 
abridged  and  amended  Articles  of  Religion.  But  the  introduction 
of  the  Sermons  and  Notes,  as  the  standard  of  preaching,  into 
every  trust  deed  of  a  chapel  or  church  in  the  connection,  as- 
sured, so  far  as  human  means  can  do  so,  an  Arminian  evan- 
gelical preaching  and  exposition  of  God's  Word  for  all  time. 

To  interpret  these  Standards,  or  apply  them  after  the  manner 
of  Articles  of  Religion,  or  creeds,  or  confessions  of  faith,  which 
categorically  define  the  doctrines  to  be  professed  or  believed, 
would  be  contrary  to  their  very  nature.    It  is  to  the  spirit 


1G8  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


aud  type  of  this  preaching  that  our  obligations  bind  us.  There 
may  be  in  the  Tslotes  and  Sermons  many  things,  accidental  and 
personal,  to  which  no  Methodist  minister  or  layman  would  feel 
bound  to  profess  assent.  But  Methodism  demands  that  in  all 
our  pulpits  we  should  preach  this  gospel,  and  expound  the  Word 
of  God  according  to  this  analogy  of  faith.* 

THE  FAITH  OP  METHODISTS 

All  who  acknowledge  Wesley  as  their  denominational 
father  have  reason  to  rejoice  that  he  imposed  no  formal 
creed  upon  his  converts  and  followers — no  creed  such  as 
those  formed  and  required  by  the  Roman  and  Greek 
Churches,  and  by  several  Protestant  communities,  which 
broke  from  the  Roman  Churches  by  nations  or  races. 

Since  the  time  of  Wesley  the  Christian  world  has  never 
found  any  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  faith  of  Method- 
ists. The  Articles  of  Religion,  so  far  as  they  go,  contain 
only  the  faiths  of  universal  Protestant  and  evangelical 
Ckristendom,  and  the  "other  existing  and  established 
Standards"  contain,  in  addition,  those  Methodist  teach- 
ings which  in  substance  or  mode  of  statement  are  not 
universal  among  Protestant  evangelical  Churches. 

As  set  forth  in  the  Notes  and  Sermons  of  Wesley,  they 
do  not  constitute  an  iron  band  which  might  enchain  the 
mind,  padlock  the  lips,  or  break  the  hearts  of  those  who, 
on  nonessentials,  diverge  from  the  common  view,  while 
they  are  sufficiently  significant  to  maintain  substantial 
unity  of  faith  and  teaching,  and  to  serve  as  bulwarks  of 
doctrine  when  the  foundations  are  attacked. 

Had  Wesley  prepared  a  written  statement  of  doctrine, 
consisting  of  minute  distinctions,  it  is  reasonable  to  be- 
lieve that  long  before  this  period  it  would  have  driven 
away  many  of  the  most  intelligent,  independent,  and 
sensitive  minds,  and  also  would  have  been  neutralized 
by  glosses  and  fanciful  interpretations.    The  nonexist- 

UnlToduclion  to  Wesley's  Doctrinal  Standards.    Part  i. 


THE  FIRST  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


169 


ence  of  a  mechanically  precise  creed,  though  not  the  sole, 
is  the  chief  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  those  which  have  the  same  or 
similar  Standards  of  doctrine,  have  had,  for  the  past 
hundred  years,  so  few  trials  for  heresy,  and  no  secession 
on  doctrinal  grounds. 

It  also  goes  far  to  explain  the  fact  that  nearly  every 
Methodist  minister,  who  withdraws  for  the  purpose  of 
entering  another  communion,  assigns  other  reasons  than 
doctrine  for  the  change.  There  must  be  Standards,  but 
those  of  Wesleyan  Methodism,  while  conserving  "substan- 
tial unity,"  allow  for  "circumstantial  variety." 


CHAPTER  XXIII 


The  Third  Restrictive  Rule^ 

"The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor  alter 
any  part  or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away 
episcopacy,  nor  destroy  the  plan  of  our  Itinerant  Gen- 
eral Superintendency."  Without  this  restriction  it 
could  legally  abolish  the  episcopacy,  or  change  it  into  a 
form  of  papacy,  and  by  a  majority  of  one  blot  out  the 
whole  system  of  Superintendency,  and,  as  a  quorum  re- 
quires only  two  thirds  of  the  whole  body,  the  General 
Conference  could  abolish  the  episcopacy  by  a  vote  of  one 
third  and  one  of  the  whole  membership. 

The  only  method  by  which  episcopacy  could  be  "done 
away,"  or  essentially  modified,  or  the  "plan"  of  our 
itinerant  Superintendency  "destroyed"  is  by  a  change  of 
the  Constitution  requii'ing  the  combined  action  of  the 
ministry  and  laity,  in  their  respective  Conferences,  and 
confirmed  by  the  General  Conference;  or,  in  the  case  of 
origination  in  the  General  Conference,  it  must  be  con- 
firmed by  the  ministry  and  laity. 

While  this  Restrictive  Rule  exists  the  episcopacy  is 
sacredly  protected  in  its  fundamental  nature  and  essen- 
tial powers. 

As  the  words  "episcopacy,"  "plan  of  our  itinerant 
General  Superintendency,"  "part  or  rule  of  our  govern- 
ment" are  not  defined  in  the  Constitution,  their  meaning 
must  be  found  in  the  Discipline  of  1908,  in  which  is  not 
only  the  Constitution,  but  the  characterization  of  "episco- 
pacy" and  every  "part  or  rule  of  our  government" 
necessary  to  "the  plan  of  our  itinerant  General  Superin- 
tendency." 

•The  Second  Restrictive  Rule  was  treated  in  Chapter  XX. 

170 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


171 


THE  EPISCOPACY  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH 

What  is  that  "episcopacy"  which  the  General  Confer- 
ence must  not  "do  away"?  Is  the  episcopacy  referred  to 
a  distinct  order  or  an  "office  grafted  upon  the  order  of 
elder"  or  presbyter? 

To  settle  all  questions  raised  by  the  Protestant 
Reformation,  the  Council  of  Trent,  assembled  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  thus  fulminated  concerning 
Bishops,  presbyters,  and  deacons:  "If  anyone  denies  that 
there  is  in  the  Church  a  hierarchy  instituted  by  divine 
ordinance  which  consists  of  Bishops,  presbyters,  and 
ministers,  let  him  be  anathema."  And,  again :  "If  any- 
one affirm  that  Bishops  are  not  superior  to  presbyters, 
or  that  they  have  not  the  power  of  confirming  and 
ordaining,  or  that  the  power  which  they  have  is  common 
to  presbyters  also,  let  him  be  anathema."^ 

Upon  this  deliverance  of  the  Council,  a  Catholic 
authority,  approved  by  the  hierarchy,  observes: 

The  Anglican  Church  did  not,  at  least  formally,  cast  off  be- 
lief in  the  divine  institution  of  episcopacy,  and  learned  Anglican 
divines,  among  whom  Pearson  is  the  most  celebrated,  have 
strenuously  vindicated  the  episcopal  authority. 

With  most  of  the  Protestant  bodies  it  has  been  otherwise. 
Tiiey  do  not  pretend  to  have  Bishops,  or  if  they  have  Superin- 
tendents u-hom  they  call  hy  that  name,  they  attribute  to  them  no 
authority  except  such  as  has  hcen  bestowed  upon  them  by  the 
Church.  They  deny,  in  other  words,  that  the  episcopate  is  of 
divine  institution,  and  directly  impugn  the  definitions  of  Trent 
on  this  subject.  They  admit,  of  course,  that  Bishops  {epis- 
copoi)  are  frequently  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  but  they 
urge  that,  in  the  Acts  and  the  Epistles,  Bishop  and  presbyter 
are  two  names  for  the  same  office.  They  suppose  that,  origi- 
nally, there  were  three  grades  in  the  hierarchy,  viz.,  the  apos- 
tles, whose  office  ended  with  their  lifetime,  and  left  no  succes- 
sors; the  Bishops  or  presbyters,  corresponding  to  the  ministers 
or  clergymen  of  the  present  day;  and  deacons. 


•Council.    Trident.    Sess.  xxiii.  Can.  6.  7. 


172  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

The  Roman  Catholic  authority  quoted  acknowledges 
that  perhaps  the  Church  of  England  did  not  cast  off  the 
"divine  institution  of  episcopacy"  in  spirit;  otherwise 
there  would  be  no  significance  in  the  phrase  "at  least, 
formally,  cast  off,"  etc.  But  a  minority,  approximating 
a  majority,  did  positively  reject  it,  and  made  public  decla- 
ration to  this  effect. 

At  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  a  large  majority  of 
ministers  and  members  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
United  States  held  one  of  two  "moderate  views"  of 
episcopacy:  One  of  these  is  that  an  episcopal  form  of 
government  is  good,  but  rests  on  the  ground  of  human 
expediency  and  not  on  divine  appointment.  The  other 
went  further,  and  considered  Bishops  as  a  superior  order 
to  presbyters  or  elders,  which  they  declared  to  be  sanc- 
tioned by  apostolic  example,  and  that  it  was  the  duty 
of  all  Churches  to  imitate  the  example;  but  they  did  not 
consider  it  necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  Church,  hence 
those  who  accepted  either  of  these  "moderate"  views 
acknowledged  as  true  Churches  those  communions  who 
do  not  adopt  episcopacy. 

But  a  minority  in  the  United  States,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  few,  "at  first  cautiously  and  occasionally 
asserted  the  High-Church  theory,  developed  an  exclusive 
feeling  harmonious  with  pride  natural  to  certain  types 
of  mind,"  and  their  numbers  rapidly  increased.  A  large 
proportion  of  the  members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  which  claims  to  be  the  only  legitimate  daughter 
of  the  Church  of  England,  sympathize  with  the  prevalent 
tendencies  in  that  country  concerning  the  episcopacy  as 
a  third  "order,  in  direct  succession  to  the  apostles."  The 
advocates  of  exclusion  have  become  more  bold,  until  it 
has  come  to  pass  that  no  Church  puts  forth  more  exclu- 
sive claims  to  apostolic  succession  than  the  Protestant 
Episcopal. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


173 


METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  DERIVED  FROM   JOHN  WESLEY 

That  the  American  Weslejan  Methodist  body  derived 
its  episcopacy  from  John  Wesley  none  doubt.  Nor  do 
any  question  that  the  Methodist  lay  preachers,  assembled 
in  Baltimore  in  1784,  accepted  Wesley's  defense  of  the 
ordination  of  Thomas  Coke  as  Superintendent,  and  the 
ordination  of  other  elders  as  described  in  the  account 
of  the  organization  of  the  Church.  This  defense  is  fully 
stated  in  the  letter  which  Wesley  addressed  to  '"Dr.  Coke, 
Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren  in  North  America."^ 

TVrO  CONFIRM IXG  LETTERS 

Within  a  few  years  two  letters  have  come  to  light,  the 
originals  of  which  are  now  the  property  of  John  F. 
Goucher.  president  emeritus  of  Goucher  College,  Balti- 
more. The  recipient  of  these  was  Stephen  Donaldson,  of 
Leesburg,  a  prominent  layman.  The  writer  was  Adam 
Fonerden,  an  active  member  of  the  Methodist  Society  in 
Baltimore  and  a  local  preacher.   Concise,  clear,  and  com- 

i"Bristol,  Sept.  10th,  1784. 
"To  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury.  and  our  Brethren  in  North  America: 

"2.  Lord  King's  .\ccount  of  the  Primitive  Church  convinced  me,  many  yeara 
ago,  that  Bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order,  and  consequently,  have  the 
same  right  to  ordain.  For  many  years  I  have  been  importuned  from  time  to 
time  to  exercise  this  right,  by  ordaining  part  of  our  traveling  preachers.  But  I 
have  still  refused,  not  only  for  peace'  sake,  but  because  I  was  determined,  as  UttLe 
as  possible  to  violate  the  established  order  of  the  national  Church,  to  which  I  be- 
longed. 

"3.  But  the  case  is  widely  different  between  England  and  North  America. 
Here  there  are  Bishops  who  have  a  legal  jurisdiction.  In  .\merica  there  are  none, 
and  but  few  psirish  ministers;  so  that  for  some  hundred  miles  together  there 
none  either  to  baptize  or  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here,  therefore,  my 
scruples  are  at  an  end:  and  I  conceive  myself  at  full  liberty,  as  I  violate  no  order 
and  invade  no  man's  right,  hy  appointir^g  and  sending  laborers  into  the  harvest. 

"4.  I  have  accordingly  appointed  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Franci*  A-buo'.  to  be  joint 
Superintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North  .-Vmerica.  .\s  til-o  Richard  \\'hatcoat 
and  Thomas  Vasey  to  act  as  elders  among  them,  by  baptizing  and  ministering  the 
Lord's  Supper. 


"John  WESMnr.' 


174  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

prehensive,  they  are  invaluable,  for  they  reveal  exactly 
what  the  founders  of  American  Methodism  meant  and 
what  they  did.  The  first  was  written  three  weeks  after 
Coke  arrived  in  New  York.  The  first  paragraph  related 
to  personal  and  commercial  business;  the  rest  is  as 
follows : 

To  Mr.  Stephen  Donaldson,  Leesburg. 

Baltimore  Nov'r  28tli-1784. 

much  Esteemed  friend 

We  have  three  English  preachers  arriv'd  their  names — Dr. 
Coke,  Mr.  Whatcoat,  &  Mr.  Vasey.  These  three  are  ordain'd  a 
presbytry  by  Mr.  Wesley  &  his  Clergy,  who  together  with  a  new 
form  of  Church  Government,  Suggested  by  Mr.  Wesley,  are  to 
Organize  us  as  a  Church,  to  have  a  Liturgy  &  administration  of 
ordinances.  But  as  this  is  not  to  be  forc'd  upon  us,  but  left  to  our 
Choice — if  we  approve  of  it,  they  Stay  and  exercise  their  new 
functions — otherwise  matters  are  left  as  they  are  at  present,  & 
after  a  little  Stay  they  depart  again  for  England.  Mr.  Asbury 
&  Dr.  Coke  are  Constituted  Joint  Superintendents,  &  as  Mr. 
Asbury  would  not  in  a  matter  of  such  Importance  do  (anything) 
by  himself,  He  has  Call'd  a  Conference  to  deliberate  thereon, 
which  is  to  meet  here  on  Christmas  day.  I  hope  if  you  can 
make  it  convenient  you  will  be  here  at  that  time,  mean  while 
I  hope  you  Still  believe  me  to  be  with  my  kind  Love  to  your 
Spouse 

Y'r  Sincere  &  affectionate  friend  &  B'r. 

Ad'm  Fonerden. 

Two  weeks  later  Coke,  who  had  been  traveling  in  Dela- 
ware, Maryland,  and  elsewhere,  appeared  at  Perry  Hall, 
a  few  miles  from  Baltimore,  to  open  the  convention  which 
founded  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Donaldson  not 
being  able  to  attend,  Fonerden  wrote  an  account  of  what 
had  been  done  in  the  Conference  up  to  the  date  of  his 
letter. 

The  great  value  of  the  second  letter  is  much  enhanced 
by  its  date.  Its  terms  also  show  that  certain  lay  mem- 
bers were  admitted  to  the  proceedings,  and  that  all  the 
principal  facts  and  changes  were  public. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


175 


To  Mr.  Stephen  Donaldson,  Leesburg. 

Baltimore  Decem'r  30th-17S4. 

much  Esteemed  friend 

We  have  at  this  Conference  agreeable  to  Mr.  Wesley's  ad- 
vice &  direction,  handed  to  us  by  that  Worthy  Man  Dr.  Coke 
form'd  ourselves  unanimously  into  an  Independant  Church 
under  the  title  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  To  be  gov- 
ern'd  by  Superintendent,  Elders  &  Deacons,  with  a  Liturgy  Little 
diflfering  from  the  Church  of  England.  The  Itinerant  plan  Still 
to  be  continued,  &  by  the  Church  Government  Adopted,  some- 
what Strengthened.  Which  will  be  printed  Shortly.  Mr.  Asbury 
was  Ordained  Superintendent  Last  Sunday  by  the  Dr.  &  the 
two  Elders  who  came  over  with  Him,  which  power  of  ordination 
being  conveyed  to  them  by  three  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, Mr.  Wesley  being  one,  we  think  as  Valid  as  any  ordination 
whatever.  It  being  now  well  known  that  in  primitive  times  the 
Office  of  presbyter  or  Elder  which  are  Synonimous  Terms,  & 
Byshop  were  one  and  the  Same,  with  only  this  Small  difference 
that  the  Chief  or  prime  presbyter  was  sometimes  called  a  Byshop. 
With  us,  The  Superintendent  answers  to  Byshop,  Who  is  to  have 
the  Oversight  of  all  &  we  think  it  a  better  name,  because  modern 
Byshops  by  being  Lords  are  Generally  devourers  of  the  flock,  & 
a  curse  to  the  people.  &  the  very  Name  conveys  a  disagreeable 
Savour.  Our  Elders  answers  to  presbyter  which  are  the  same 
in  office.  And  Deacons  are  to  assist  the  Elders  in  administering 
the  Lords  Supper,  &  may  baptise  in  the  Elders  Absence.  About 
15  Elders  will  be  Ordained  before  Conference  breaks  up,  & 
Several  Deacons.  The  Greatest  Caution  will  be  used  in  future  in 
admitting  of  preachers  into  Connection,  &  any  Elder  who  Lo- 
quates  himself,  is  no  Longer  to  Exercise  the  peculiar  functions 
of  his  Office,  without  Consent  of  Conference,  under  the  penalty 
of  Expulsion.  .  .  .  Enclosed  I  have  sent  you  Mr.  Wesley's  Circular 
Letter — and  for  want  of  Time  must  Subscribe  myself  Y'r 

Sincere  &  affec'e 

friend  &  B'r 

Ad'm  Fonerden. 

This  letter  demonstrates  that  the  General  Superintendency 
or  "episcopacy,"  received  from  Wesley,  through  Coke, 
was  not  an  "order"  in  the  sense  in  which  Wesley  con- 
sidered the  eldership  to  be  an  "order,"  but  an  "office" 
filled  by  an  elder,  chosen  and  "set  apart"  for  the  purpose. 


176  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


There  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"order"  as  applied  by  Wesley  and  Coke  to  elders  or  pres- 
byters. It  is  a  sacred  rank  of  divine  origin,  a  solemn 
setting  apart,  from  laymen,  however  wise  or  good,  of 
those  "called  of  God"  to  the  work  of  the  ministry.  The 
oflSce  of  Bishop  in  this  sense  was  not  of  "divine  origin." 

coke's  testimony 
Such  was  the  belief  of  Wesley,  and  the  words  of  Coke 
in  his  sermon  at  the  ordination  of  Asbury  were  in  har- 
mony with  this. 

(Extract  from  Dr.  Coke's  sermon  at  the  ordination  of 
Bishop  Ashury.) 

"But  what  right  have  you  to  ordain?"  The  same  right  as 
most  of  the  reformed  Churches  in  Christendom:  our  ordination, 
in  its  lowest  view,  being  equal  to  any  of  the  Presbyterian,  as 
originating  with  three  presbyters  of  the  Church  of  England. 

"But  what  right  have  you  to  exercise  the  episcopal  office?" 
To  me  the  most  manifest  and  clear.  God  has  been  pleased,  by 
Mr.  Wesley,  to  raise  up  in  America  and  Europe  a  numerous 
society,  well  known  by  the  name  of  Methodists.  The  whole  body 
has  invariably  esteemed  this  man  as  their  chief  pastor,  under 
Christ.  He  has  constantly  appointed  all  their  religious  officers 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  by  himself  or  his  delegate.  And 
we  are  fully  persuaded  there  is  no  Church  office  which  he  judges 
expedient  for  the  welfare  of  the  people  intrusted  to  his  charge, 
but,  as  essential  to  his  station,  he  has  a  power  to  ordain.  After 
long  deliberation  he  saw  it  his  duty  to  form  his  society  in 
America  into  an  independent  Church;  but  he  loved  the  most 
excellent  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  he  loved  its  rites 
and  ceremonies,  and  therefore  adopted  them  in  most  instances 
for  the  present  case. 

Besides,  in  addition  to  this,  we  have  every  qualification  for 
an  episcopal  Church  which  that  at  Alexandria  (a  Church  of  no 
small  note  in  the  primitive  times)  possessed  for  two  hundred 
years,  our  Bishops,  or  Superintendents  (as  we  call  them),  having 
been  elected  or  received  by  the  suffrages  of  the  whole  body  of  our 
ministers  through  the  continent,  assembled  in  General  Con- 
ference. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


177 


"But  don't  you  break  the  succession?"  The  uninterrupted 
succession  of  Bishops  is  a  point  that  has  been  long  given  up  by 
the  ablest  Protestant  defender  of  episcopacy.  Bishop  Hoadley. 
...  He  grants  the  authenticity  of  the  anecdote  given  us  by 
Saint  Jerome,  which  informs  us  that  the  Church  of  Alexandria, 
mentioned  above,  had  no  regular  succession  from  the  line  of 
Saint  Mark,  the  evangelist,  the  first  Bishop  of  that  Church,  to 
the  time  of  Dionysius,  a  space  of  two  hundred  years:  but  the 
college  of  presbyters,  on  the  death  of  a  Bishop  elected  another 
in  his  stead.  .  .  .  And  from  the  epistle  of  Saint  Polycarp  to  the 
Church  of  Philippi,'  written  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  116,  we  also 
find  that  the  Christian  Philippians  were  then  governed  only 
by  a  college  of  presbyters.  So  that  the  primitive  Christians  were 
so  far  from  esteeming  the  regular  succession  as  essential  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Christian  Church,  that  in  some  instances 
episcopacy  itself  was  wholly  omitted. 

But  of  all  the  forms  of  Church  government,  we  think  a 
moderate  episcopacy  is  the  best.  The  executive  power  being 
lodged  in  the  hands  of  one,  or  at  least  a  few,  vigor  and  activity 
are  given  to  the  resolves  of  the  body,  and  those  two  essential 
requisites  for  any  grand  undertaking  are  sweetly  united — calm- 
ness and  wisdom  in  deliberating;  and  in  the  executive  depart- 
ment, expedition  and  force. 

Wesley's  own  views 
The  history  of  the  evolution  of  Wesley  from  extreme 
High  Church  views  to  the  principles  on  which  the  episco- 
pacy of  Methodism  rests,  overthrows  the  charge  that  he 
was  overpersuaded  in  age  and  weakness,  and  that  his 
real  views  were  contrary  to  his  conduct  in  ordaining. 
In  his  Journal  for  September  1,  1784,  he  records  "being 
now  clear  in  mine  own  mind,  I  took  a  step  which  I  had 
long  weighed  in  my  mind  and  appointed  Mr.  Whatcoat 
and  Mr.  Vasey  to  go  and  serve  the  desolate  sheep  in 
America." 

Thirty-eight  years  before  the  ordination  of  Coke,  on 
Monday,  January  20,  1746,  Wesley  wrote: 

I  set  out  for  Bristol.  On  the  road  I  read  over  Lord  King's 
•Polycarp.  ad  Philip.  Salutat..  Sec.  v.  vi,  is.  pp.  186,  188,  189. 


178  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


account  of  the  primitive  Church.  In  spite  of  the  vehement 
prejudice  of  my  education,  I  was  ready  to  believe  that  this  was  a 
fair  and  impartial  draft;  but  if  so,  it  would  follow  that  Bishops 
and  presbyters  are  (essentially)  of  one  order,  and  that  origi- 
nally every  Christian  congregation  was  a  Church  independent  of 
all  others! 

In  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Thomas  Adams,  under  date  of 
London,  October  31,  1755,  Wesley  says : 

It  is  not  clear  to  us,  that  presbyters,  so  circumstanced  as  we 
are,  may  appoint  or  ordain  others;  but  it  is,  that  we  may  direct, 
as  well  as  suffer,  them  to  do  what  we  conceive  they  are  moved 
to  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  .  .  .  Dear  sir,  coolly  and  impartially  con- 
sider this,  and  you  will  see  on  which  side  the  difficulty  lies.  I 
do  assure  you,  this  at  present  is  my  chief  embarrassment.  That 
I  have  not  gone  too  far  yet,  I  know;  but  whether  I  have  gone  far 
enough  I  am  extremely  doubtful.  I  see  those  running  whom 
God  hath  not  sent;  destroying  their  own  souls,  and  those  that 
hear  them;  perverting  the  right  ways  of  the  Lord,  and  blas- 
pheming the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  .  .  .  Soul-damning  clergymen 
lay  me  under  more  difficulties  than  soul-saving  laymen!' 

In  a  letter  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Clarke,  written  July  3,  1756, 

he  says: 

As  to  my  own  judgment,  I  still  believe  "the  episcopal  form  of 
Church  government  to  be  scriptural  and  apostolical";  I  mean, 
well  agreeing  with  the  practice  and  writings  of  the  apostles. 
But  that  it  is  prescribed  in  Scripture  I  do  not  believe.  This 
opinion,  which  I  once  zealously  espoused,  I  have  been  heartily 
ashamed  of  ever  since  I  read  Bishop  Stillingfleet's  Irenicon.  I 
think  he  has  unanswerably  proved  that  "neither  Christ  nor  his 
apostles  prescribe  any  particular  form  of  Church  government; 
and  that  the  plea  of  divine  right  for  diocesan  episcopacy  was 
never  heard  of  in  the  primitive  Church."^ 

OPPOSITION  OF  CHARLES  WESLEY 

After  the  ordination  of  Asbury  various  controversies 
arose  between  John  and  Charles  Wesley.  On  April  28, 
1785,  Charles  Wesley  addressed  a  long  letter  to  Dr. 

Wesley's  Works,  vol.  vi,  p.  282. 
nbid.,  vol.  vii,  p.  284. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


179 


Chandler,  a  clergAman  of  the  Church  of  Enjjlancl,  who 
was  about  to  embark  for  America.  Referring  to  his 
brother  John,  he  said : 

After  our  having  continued  friends  for  above  seventy  years, 
and  fellow  laborers  for  above  fifty,  can  anything  but  death  part 
us?  I  can  scarcely  yet  believe  it,  that,  in  his  eighty-second  year, 
my  brother,  my  old,  intimate  friend  and  companion,  should  have 
assumed  the  episcopal  character,  ordained  elders,  consecrated  a 
Bishop,  and  sent  him  to  ordain  our  lay  preachers  in  America! 
I  was  then  in  Bristol,  at  his  elbow;  yet  he  never  gave  me  the 
least  hint  of  his  intention.  How  was  he  surprised  into  so  rash 
an  action?   He  certainly  persuaded  himself  that  it  was  right. 

Lord  Mansfield  told  me  last  year  that  ordination  was  separa- 
tion. This  my  brother  does  not  and  will  not  see;  or  that  he  has 
renounced  the  principles  and  practice  of  his  whole  life;  that  he 
has  acted  contrary  to  all  his  declarations,  protestations,  and 
writings;  robbed  his  friends  of  their  boasting,  and  left  an  in- 
delible blot  on  his  name,  as  long  as  it  shall  be  remembered!  .  .  . 

What  will  become  of  these  poor  sheep  in  the  wilderness,  the 
American  Methodists?  How  have  they  been  betrayed  into  a 
separation  from  the  Church  of  England,  which  their  preachers 
and  they  no  more  intended  than  the  Methodists  here!  Had  they 
had  patience  a  little  longer  they  would  have  seen  a  real  Bishop 
in  America,  consecrated  by  three  Scotch  Bishops,  who  have  their 
consecration  from  the  English  Bishops,  and  are  acknowledged 
by  them  as  the  same  with  themselves.  .  .  .  But  what  are  your 
poor  Methodists  now?  Only  a  new  sect  of  Presbyterians.  And, 
after  my  brother's  death,  which  is  now  so  near,  what  will  be 
their  end?  They  will  lose  all  their  influence  and  importance; 
they  will  turn  aside  to  vain  janglings;  they  will  settle  again 
upon  their  lees;  and,  like  other  sects  of  Dissenters,  come  to 
nothing.* 

On  August  1,  of  the  same  year  John  Wesley  set  apart 
three  preachers  to  minister  in  Scotland,  and  the  next 
year  two  more;  he  also  ordained  one  for  Antigua,  and 
another  for  Newfoundland. 

A  year  later  five  others  were  ordained,  and  in  1788 
Wesley,  being  in  Scotland,  ordained  two  more;  and  at 

iTyerman.  Life  and  Times  of  Wesley,  vol.  iii,  pp.  439,  440. 


180  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


the  next  Conference  seven,  including  Alexander  Mather, 
who  was  ordained  to  the  office,  as  were  the  others,  not 
only  of  deacon  and  elder,  but  of  Superintendent;  and  in 
1789  he  ordained  Henry  More  and  Thomas  Rankin. 

Wesley's  defense  of  "Separation"  was  published  in  the 
Methodist  Magazine  in  1786.  Therein,  with  respect  to 
those  ordained  for  Scotland,  he  says  that,  to  prevent  their 
falling  away, 

I,  at  length,  consented  to  take  the  same  step  with  regard  to 
Scotland,  which  I  had  done  with  regard  to  America.  But  this 
is  not  a  separation  from  the  Church  at  all.  Not  from  the  Church 
of  Scotland,  for  we  were  never  connected  therewith,  any  further 
than  we  are  now:  nor  from  the  Church  of  England,  for  this  is 
not  concerned  in  the  steps  which  are  taken  in  Scotland.  What- 
ever, then,  is  done  in  America  or  Scotland  is  no  separation  from 
the  Church  of  England. 

John  Pawson,  one  of  the  most  influential  Wesleyans, 
said  on  this  subject  that  "Wesley  foresaw  that  the  Meth- 
odists would  soon  become  a  distinct  body.  He  was  deeply 
prejudiced  against  presbyterian,  and  as  much  in  favor 
of  episcopal,  government.  In  order,  therefore,  to  pre- 
serve among  the  Methodists  all  that  is  valuable  in  the 
Church  of  England,  he  ordained  Mr.  Mather  and  Dr. 
Coke,  Bishops." 

INTENSE  FEELING  ELICITED 

August  14,  1785,  Charles  Wesley  wrote  his  brother, 
beginning  by  a  reference  to  John  Wesley's  "Reasons 
against  a  Separation,"  printed  in  1758,  and  proceeding: 

I  intreat  you,  in  the  name  of  God,  and  for  Christ's  sake,  to 
read  them  again  yourself,  with  previous  prayer,  and  stop,  and 
proceed  no  farther,  till  you  receive  an  answer  to  your  inquiry, 
"Lord,  what  woulds't  Thou  have  me  to  do?"  .  .  .  Near  thirty  years, 
since  then,  you  have  stood  against  the  importunate  solicitations 
of  your  preachers,  who  have  scarcely  at  last  prevailed.  I  was 
your  natural  ally,  and  faithful  friend;  and,  while  you  continued 
faithful  to  yourself,  we  two  could  chase  a  thousand. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


181 


But  when  you  once  began  ordaining  in  America  I  linew,  and 
you  knew,  that  your  preachers  here  would  never  rest  till  you 
ordained  them.  You  told  me,  they  would  separate  by  and  by. 
The  doctor  tells  us  the  same.  His  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  Baltimore  was  intended  to  beget  a  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  here.  .  .  . 

He  concluded  pathetically : 

So  much,  I  think,  you  owe  to  my  father,  to  my  brother,  and 
to  me,  as  to  stay  till  I  am  taken  from  the  evil.  I  am  on  the 
brink  of  the  grave.  Do  not  push  me  in,  or  embitter  my  last 
moments.  .  .  . 

Five  days  later,  August  19,  1785,  Wesley  replied: 
Dear  Brother:   I  will  tell  you  my  thoughts  with  all  sim- 
plicity, and  wait  for  better  information.    If  you  agree  with  me, 
well;  if  not,  we  can,  as  Mr.  Whitefield  used  to  say,  agree  to 
disagree. 

For  these  forty  years  I  have  been  in  doubt  concerning  that 
question.  What  obedience  is  due  to  "Heathenish  priests  and 
mitered  infidels?"'  I  have,  from  time  to  time,  proposed  my 
doubts  to  the  most  pious  and  sensible  clergymen  I  knew.  But 
they  gave  me  no  satisfaction.  Rather,  they  seemed  to  be  puzzled 
as  well  as  me. 

Obedience  I  always  paid  to  the  Bishops,  in  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  the  land.  But  I  cannot  see  that  I  am  under  any  obliga- 
tion to  obey  them  further  than  those  laws  require. 

It  is  in  obedience  to  these  laws  that  I  have  never  exercised 
In  England  the  power,  which,  I  believe,  God  has  given  me.  I 
firmly  believe,  I  am  a  scriptural  episcopos,  as  much  as  any  man 
in  England,  or  in  Europe,  for  the  uninterrupted  succession  I 
know  to  be  a  fable  which  no  man  ever  did  or  can  prove.  .  .  . 

After  arguing  the  question,  What  is  the  Church  of 
England?  he  closes  his  letter  thus: 

I  walk  still  by  the  same  rule  T  have  done  for  between  forty 
and  fifty  years.  I  do  nothing  rashly.  It  is  not  likely  I  should. 
The  high  day  of  my  blood  is  over.  If  you  will  go  hand  in  hand 
with  me,  do.  But  do  not  hinder  me,  if  you  will  not  help.  Per- 
haps if  you  had  kept  close  to  me,  I  might  have  done  better. 

'This  was  Charles  Wesley's  owq  line. 


182  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


However,  with  or  without  help,  I  creep  on;  and  as  I  have  been 

hitherto,  so  I  trust  I  shall  always  be. 

Your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

,  , ,       J.  ,„     ,     .         ,  John  Wesley. 

The  letter  of  Cbarles  in  reply  says: 

That  juvenile  line  of  mine,  "Heathenish  priests,  and  mitered 
infidels,"  I  disown,  renounce,  and  with  shame  recant.  I  never 
knew  of  more  than  one  "mitered  infidel,"  and  for  him  I  took 
Mr.  Law's  word.  .  .  .  That  you  are  a  scriptural  episcopos,  or 
overseer,  I  do  not  dispute.  And  so  is  every  minister  who  has 
the  cure  of  souls.  Neither  need  we  dispute  whether  the  unin- 
terrupted succession  be  fabulous,  as  you  believe;  or  real,  as  I 
believe;  or  whether  Lord  King  be  right  or  wrong.  ...  If  I  could 
prove  your  actual  separation,  I  would  not,  neither  wish  to  see 
it  proved  by  any  other.  But  do  you  not  allow  that  the  Doctor 
has  separated?  .  .  .  Have  you  seen  his  ordination  sermon?  Is  the 
high  day  of  his  blood  over?  Does  he  do  nothing  rashly?  Have 
you  not  made  yourself  the  author  of  all  his  actions?  ...  I  thank 
you  for  your  intention  to  remain  my  friend;  herein  my  heart 
is  as  your  heart;  whom  God  hath  joined  let  not  man  put  asunder. 
We  have  taken  each  other  for  better  for  worse,  till  death  do  us — 
part?  No;  but  unite  eternally.  Therefore,  in  the  love  which 
never  faileth,  I  am  your  affectionate  friend  and  brother, 

In  five  days  Wesley  replied:  Charles  Wesley. 

Dear  Brother:  I  see  no  use  of  you  and  me  disputing  together; 
for  neither  of  us  is  likely  to  convince  the  other.  .  .  .  Your  verse 
is  a  sad  truth.  I  see  fifty  times  more  of  England  than  you  do; 
and  I  find  few  exceptions  to  it. 

I  believe  Dr.  Coke  is  as  free  from  ambition  as  from  covetous- 
ness.  He  has  done  nothing  rashly  that  I  know;  but  he  has 
spoken  rashly,  which  he  retracted  the  moment  I  spoke  to  him 
of  it.  To  publish,  as  his  present  thoughts,  what  he  had  before 
retracted,  was  not  fair  play.  ...  I  am,  etc.         John  Wesley. 

These  letters  show  that  John  Wesley  was  cognizant 
of  what  had  been  done  in  the  United  States,  and  unques- 
tionably did  not  intend  Coke  to  be  called  Bishop,  but 
Superintendent.  The  word  "Bishop,"  as  spoken  by  Adam 
Fonerden,  meant  a  professed  divine  order,  and  stood  in 
popular  opinion  for  "the  mitered  infidels."  Consequently, 
when  the  American  Methodists  used  the  word  "Bishop," 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


183 


Wesley  wrote  with  severity  to  Asbury,  under  date  of  Sep- 
tember 20,  1788 : 

But  in  one  point,  my  dear  brother,  I  am  a  little  afraid,  both 
the  Doctor  and  you  differ  from  me.  I  study  to  be  little;  you 
study  to  be  great.  I  creep;  you  strut  along.  I  found  a  school; 
you  a  college;  nay,  and  call  it  after  your  own  names.  O,  beware; 
do  not  seek  to  be  something!  Let  me  be  nothing,  and  "Christ  be 
all  in  all!" 

One  instance  of  this,  of  your  greatness,  has  given  me  great 
concern.  How  can  you,  how  dare  you,  suffer  yourself  to  be 
called  Bishop?  I  shudder,  I  start  at  the  very  thought!  Men 
may  call  me  a  knave  or  a  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel,  and  I  am 
content,  but  they  shall  never,  by  my  consent,  call  me  Bishop! 
For  my  sake,  for  God's  sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  put  a  full  end  to 
this!  Let  the  Presbyterians  do  what  they  please,  but  let  the 
Methodists  know  their  calling  better. 

The  reference  to  the  Presbyterians  derives  its  meaning 
from  the  fact  that  every  Presbyterian,  "teaching  elder" 
styles  himself  a  Bishop.    This  is  their  statement: 

The  pastoral  office  is  the  first  in  the  Church  both  for  dignity 
and  usefulness.  The  person  who  fills  this  office  hath  in  the 
Scripture  obtained  different  names  expressive  of  his  various 
duties.  As  he  has  the  oversight  of  the  flock  of  Christ,  he  is 
termed  Bishop.  As  he  feeds  them  with  spiritual  food,  he  is 
termed  pastor.  As  he  serves  Christ  in  his  Church,  he  is  termed 
minister.  As  it  is  his  duty  to  be  grave  and  prudent,  and  an 
example  of  the  flock,  and  to  govern  well  in  the  house  and  king- 
dom of  Christ,  he  is  termed  presbyter  or  elder.^ 

The  Presbyterians  entitle  their  chapter  on  the  pastoral 
relation  and  office,  "Of  Bishops  and  Pastors,"  and  empha- 
size the  use  of  the  word  "Bishop"  by  the  following: 

As  the  office  and  character  of  the  gospel  ministers  is  particu- 
larly and  fully  described  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  under  the  title 
of  "Bishop,"  and  as  this  term  is  peculiarly  expressive  of  his 
duty  as  an  overseer  of  the  flock,  it  ought  not  to  be  rejected. 

They  have  no  office  corresponding  to  "General  Superin- 
tendent," the  name  given  to  Thomas  Coke  and  used  by 
Wesley  of  Asbury. 

'Tyerman,  lAfe  and  Times  of  Wesley,  vol.  iii,  p.  438. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 


The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued) 

Having  shown  by  Wesley's  words,  and  by  those  of 
Thomas  Coke,  that  Wesley,  as  respects  the  question  of 
"order,"  based  his  right  to  ordain  wholly  on  the  fact  that 
he  was  a  presbyter  or  elder  in  the  Church  of  England; 
and  that  he  relied  on  his  peculiar  relation  to  American 
Methodists,  and  their  emergent  situation,  for  the  pro- 
priety of  exercising  the  power  inherent  in  the  eldership  to 
confer  upon  other  elders  a  function  or  office  which  made 
them,  in  the  exercise  of  power,  "the  first  among  equals," 
it  is  now  in  order  to  present  in  broad  outlines  the  dis- 
putations to  which  his  ordinations  gave  rise. 

Writers  in  the  Church  of  England,  including  Dr. 
Whitehead,  Wesley's  physician  and  biographer,  perplexed 
themselves  and  others  by  reiterating  that  "if  Wesley,  who 
was  merely  a  presbyter,  could  make  a  Bishop,  then  the 
greater  was  blessed  of  the  less,"  and  Wesley's  own  brother, 
Charles,  wrote: 

So  easily  are  Bishops  made, 

By  man  or  woman's  whim; 
Wesley  his  hands  on  Coke  hath  laid, 

But  who  laid  hands  on  him? 

They  begged  the  question,  for  the  type  of  Bishop,  that 
Wesley  proposed  to  make,  was  not  inherently  greater  in 
"order,"  but  was  superior  only  in  special  functions 
specially  conferred. 

DEFENSE  OF  METHODIST  EPISCOPACY  BY  WATSON  AND  DICKINS 

Richard  Watson,  who  came  upon  the  scene  before  the 
death  of  Wesley,  published  in  1831  An  Apology  for  the 
184 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


185 


People  Called  Methodists,  in  which  he  vindicated  the 
attitude  of  Methodism  as  respects  its  relation  to  the 
National  Church.   He  thus  states  the  case: 

Wesley  did  not  pretend  to  ordain  Bishops  in  the  modern 
sense,  but  only  according  to  his  view  of  primitive  episcopacy,  .  .  . 
founded  upon  the  principle  of  Bishops  and  presbyters  being  of 
the  same  degree,  a  more  extended  office  only  being  assigned  to 
the  former,  as  in  the  primitive  Church.  For,  though  nothing 
can  be  more  obvious  than  that  the  primitive  pastors  are  called 
Bishops  or  presbyters  indiscriminately  in  the  New  Testament, 
yet  at  an  early  period  those  presbyters  were,  by  way  of  dis- 
tinction, denominated  Bishops,  who  presided  in  the  meetings  of 
presbyters,  and  were  finally  invested  with  the  government  of 
several  churches,  with  their  respective  presbyteries;  so  that  two 
offices  were  then,  as  in  this  case,  grafted  upon  the  same  order. 

It  has  already  been  shown  that  the  American  Method- 
ists accepted  this  view  and  distinctly  avowed  it. 

In  answer  to  attacks,  John  Dickins,  the  first  preacher 
whom  Coke  consulted  after  his  arrival  in  America,  and 
who  proposed  the  name  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  had 
forced  upon  him  the  necessity  of  defending  it.  Others 
had  desired  simply  the  name,  "Methodist  Church";  but 
the  proposition  of  Dickins  was  accepted  upon  the  ground 
that  the  having  of  Superintendents,  etc.,  was  a  "species 
of  episcopacy."  In  replying  to  the  charges  of  William 
Hammett,  Dickins  wrote: 

Now,  whoever  said  the  superiority  of  the  Bishops  was  by 
virtue  of  a  separate  ordination?  If  this  gave  them  their  su- 
periority, how  came  they  to  be  removable  by  the  Conference? 
If,  then,  what  you  there  plead  for,  will  "sap  the  foundation  of 
all  arbitrary  power,"  it  has  been  sapped  in  our  connection  from 
the  first  establishment  of  our  constitution. 

Again  he  remarks,  "We  all  know  Mr.  Asbury  derived 
his  oflBcial  power  from  the  Conference,  and  therefore  his 
ofiBce  is  at  their  disposal."  He  declares  that  the  supe- 
riority of  our  Bishops  is  derived  not  from  their  "separate 
ordination"  but  from  "the  suffrages  of  the  body  of 


186  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ministers,"  and  exclaims,  "Pray  wlien  was  it  otherwise, 
and  how  can  the  Conference  have  power  to  remove  Mr. 
Asbury  and  ordain  another  to  fill  his  place  if  they  see  it 
necessary  on  other  grounds?" 

CONCISE  STATEMENTS 

The  testimony,  written  in  his  earlier  years,  of  Joshua 
Soule,  author  of  the  plan  for  a  delegated  General  Con- 
ference, is  most  definitely  to  the  point.  It  is  here  quoted 
from  a  manuscript  in  the  writing  of  Soule,  the  original 
of  which  is  in  the  possession  of  the  family  of  Dr.  Tigert, 
who  quotes  the  same  in  his  A  Coiistitittional  History  of 
American  Episcopal  Methodism  (revised  edition,  page 
212)  : 

Dr.  Coke  was  ordained  Superintendent  by  Mr.  Wesley  and 
sent  to  America  to  act  in  Mr.  Wesley's  place  and  [he],  conse- 
quently, vested  him  with  ample  powers  to  superintend  and  do 
the  work  of  an  evangelist  in  organizing  the  Church,  and  this  he 
did  on  the  plan  recommended  by  Mr.  Wesley,  which  was  on 
the  episcopal  plan;  consequently,  no  material  change  was  made 
in  the  system  first  introduced.  An  episcopacy  being  recom- 
mended and  appointed  by  Mr.  Wesley,  his  recommendation  was 
approved  of  and  his  appointment  confirmed  by  the  American 
preachers;  and,  in  organizing  the  Church,  they  admitted  of 
two  orders  in  the  ministry,  elders  and  deacons. 

When  Nathan  Bangs  was  charged  with  believing  in  and 
setting  forth  in  his  Methodist  Episcopacy  "three  orders," 
he  denied  that  he  used  the  word  "Bishops"  in  a  prelatical 
sense,  and  said  if  anyone  chooses  "to  say  that  we  acknowl- 
edge two  orders  only  and  a  superior  minister,  possessing 
a  delegated  jurisdiction  chiefly  of  an  executive  character, 
he  has  my  full  consent;  I  will  not  dispute  about  words." 

Bishop  John  Emory,  in  The  Defense  of  Our  Fathers, 
says,  "In  whatever  sense  distinct  ordinations  constitute 
distinct  orders,  in  the  same  sense  Mr.  Wesley  certainly 
intended  that  we  should  have  three  orders,  for  he  undeui- 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


187 


ably  instituted  three  distinct  ordinations."  Yet  he 
immediately  adds:  "At  the  same  time  we  maintain  that  a 
third  degree  of  ordination  is  perfectly  compatible  with 
the  doctrine  of  two  orders,  if  the  term  'order'  be  used  as 
implying  divine  right."  That  is  to  say,  if  the  word 
"order"  be  used  as  Wesley  used  it.  Elsewhere  he  says, 
"The  idea  that  equals  cannot  from  among  themselves 
constitute  an  officer  who  as  an  officer  shall  be  superior 
to  any  of  those  b}'  whom  he  was  constituted  is  contra- 
dicted by  all  experience  and  history,  both  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical, and  equally  so  by  common  sense." 

Perhaps  the  best  summing  up  of  the  subject  by  any 
American  writer  is  found  in  the  History  of  Methodism, 
by  Bishop  McTyeire  (page  394)  : 

No  case  can  be  better  made  out  before  a  competent  tribunal 
than  that  John  Wesley,  upon  maturest  deliberation  and  counsel, 
purposed  and  took  all  formal  measures  to  establish  and  per- 
petuate an  episcopacy  for  American  Methodism,  upon  a  presby- 
terial  basis.  Men,  according  to  their  notions,  may  differ  and 
dispute  about  the  sufficiency  or  the  insufficiency  of  that  basis, 
the  scripturalness  or  the  unscripturalness  of  that  transaction; 
but  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to  what  was  intended 
and  done.  John  Wesley  belonged  to  that  class  of  Episcopalians 
who  believed  that  episcopacy  is  not  a  distinct  "order,"  but  a 
distinct  office,  in  the  ministry;  that  Bishops  and  presbyters,  or 
elders,  are  of  the  same  "order,"  and  have  essentially  the  same 
prerogatives;  but  that,  for  convenience,  some  of  this  "order" 
may  be  raised  to  the  episcopal  office,  and  functions  originally 
pertaining  to  the  whole  order — as  ordination,  for  example — may 
be  confined  to  them.  The  presbyter  thus  elevated  is  but  primus 
inter  pares — the  first  among  equals. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  hierarchy  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
and  Greek  Churches,  and  the  High  Church  branch  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  our  "succession"  is  contemptible;  but  with  John 
Wesley  and  our  fathers  we  reject  their  hierarchical  pre- 
tensions, attach  no  value  to  them,  and  have  no  sympathy 


188  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


with  them.  Wesley,  indeed,  maintained  his  connection 
with  the  Church  of  England,  but  constantly  avowed  his 
Bishops  to  be  only  of  the  same  "order"  with  himself. 
He  certainly  intended  the  General  Superintendents  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  be  ordained  by  the 
English  Church  formula,  yet  lie  opposed  the  name 
''Bishop/'  lest  it  should  he  taken  to  justify  the  unfounded 
claim  of  an  uninterrupted  succession  from  the  apostles 
by  a  third  order  instead  of  a  Superintendent  elected  by 
the  elders.  This  is  conclusively  proved  by  the  fact  that 
to  harmonize  the  English  Ritual  with  his  principles  he 
changed  the  title  of  the  ordination  service  to  "The  Form 
and  Manner  of  Making  and  Ordaining  of  Superintendents, 
Elders,  and  Deacons."  Similar  changes  were  made 
throughout,  everywhere  substituting  the  word  "Super- 
intendent" for  "Bishop." 

DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  JIETIIODIST  EPISCOPACY  AND  THAT  OP 
THOSE  CLAIMING  A  "THIUD  OUDER" 

It  is  said  by  some  that  the  "question  is  reduced  to  mere 
words,  since  Bishoi^s  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
have  all  the  privileges  and  functions  which  they  would 
have  were  the  episcopacy  a  third  order,  namely,  life 
tenure,  exclusive  power  to  ordain  others,  and  a  third 
ordination  themselves." 

This  is  a  palpable  and  inexcusable  error,  for  there  are 
many  and  grave  differences.  In  tbe  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  the  Bishops  do  not  constitute  a  compact  organi- 
zation, with  the  power  of  vetoing  all  legislation. 

They  cannot  boast  descent  in  a  continuous  line  (of 
Bishops)  from  the  apostles,  nor  claim  to  be  their  suc- 
cessors; nor  can  they  claim  any  essential  superiority 
over  the  elders. 

They  have  not  the  exclusive  power  of  confirming  con- 
verts, nor  can  one  Methodist  General  Superintendent 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


189 


exercise  complete,  sole,  and  permanent  authority  in  any 
section  exclusively. 

Without  any  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  episcopacy 
could  be  abolished  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  ministry 
and  laity  voting  separately,  and  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of 
the  members  of  the  next  succeeding  General  Conference; 
and  episcopacy  might  be  retained,  yet  the  life  tenure  be 
removed  by  constitutional  process. 

There  is  also  another  important  difference:  Methodist 
Bishops  are  relieved  from  temptation  to  the  exactions, 
eccentricities,  and  various  forms  of  oppression  which 
ecclesiastical  history  records  of  a  hierarchy  boasting 
"exclusive  divine  right." 

The  consciousness  of  being  of  a  superior  ^'divine  order/' 
of  having  the  possession  of  the  sole  power  of  ordination, 
the  sole  control  of  a  diocese,  and  in  cooperation  with  other 
Bishops,  the  power  of  preventing  the  enactment  of  laws 
restricting  their  authority,  privileges,  or  emoluments, 
and  thus  assuring  a  life  lease  of  all  these  distinctions 
and  unparalleled  prerogatives,  form  a  congeries  of  temp- 
tations to  vanity  and  indifference  to  public  opinion 
unequaled  except  by  hereditary  royalty. 

Yet  it  must  not  be  suposed  that  the  governments  of 
the  Presbyterian  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are 
the  same.  They  are  indeed  alike  with  respect  to  the 
"order"  of  elder  and  in  denying  that  there  is  "of  divine 
right"  such  an  "order,"  of  Bishops.  It  is  on  this  ground 
that  Presbyterian  ministerial  orders  are  recognized  by 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  orders  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  recognized  by  the  Pres- 
byterian Church.  But  the  "orders"  of  neither  are  recog- 
nized as  valid  by  the  Koman  Catholic  Church,  the  Church 
of  England,  or  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

Should  the  Presbyterian  Church  by  its  constitutional 
methods  enact  that  there  be  one  or  more  presbyters  elected 


190  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


as  General  Superintendents  who  should  hold  office  for 
life  or  good  behavior,  and  to  them  should  be  committed 
the  power  of  ordaining;  prescribing  also  that  certain 
elders  should  assist,  and  that  if  by  reason  of  death  or 
other  cause  there  should  be  no  Superintendent,  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  should  elect  one  or  more  Superintendents 
and  that  the  Presbytery  ordain  them,  their  system,  so 
far  as  "orders"  are  concerned,  would  be  similar  to  our 
own,  except  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  considers  the 
deaconate  a  function  of  the  laity ;  and  ordains  laymen 
as  "ruling  elders,"  and  ministers  as  "teaching  elders." 

When  Bishop  McTyeire  declared  that  our  episcopacy 
rests  on  "a  presbyterial  basis"  he  meant  that  the  office  of 
Bishop  is  grafted  on  the  order  of  elder  or  presbyter  by 
the  votes  of  the  presbyters. 

It  was  in  the  same  sense  that  Bishop  Levi  Scott,  at  the 
closing  session  of  the  Indiana  Conference  in  1871,  on  ris- 
ing to  read  the  appointments,  thus  addressed  tlie  Confer- 
ence: "Brother  Presbyters,  I  rise  as  a  presbyter-Bishop 
to  give  you  your  work  for  a  year."^ 

Wesley  much  preferred  episcopacy  to  Presbyterianism 
as  possessing  far  more  executive  and  cohesive  force;  but 
he  based  his  right  to  ordain  on  the  fact  that  he  was  a 
presbyter.  And  Bishop  Scott  meant  that  he  was  what 
Wesley  himself  was  to  American  Methodists — a  presbyter- 
General  Superintendent. 

A  small  minority  of  the  Church  have  at  intervals 
essayed  to  prove  that  the  Methodist  episcopacy  is  an 
"order"  distinct  from  that  of  elders,  and  not  merely  a 
function  conferred  chiefly  for  executive  purposes  on 
certain  elders. 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1830  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  the  Bishops  ie  requested  to  select  some  suit- 

iJames  Mitchell,  D.D.,  Life  and  Times  of  Levi  Scott.  D.D. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


191 


able  and  competent  person  to  prepare  for  publication  a  vindica- 
tion of  our  episcopal  ordination. 

THE  OPINION  OF  THE  BISHOPS 

The  Bishops  themselves  took  the  subject  under  advise- 
ment, and  discussed  it  in  their  Address  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1844.  What  they  said  was  both  a  testi- 
mony and  an  exposition: 

Without  entering  minutely  into  the  details  of  what  is  involved 
in  the  Superintendency,  as  it  is  constituted  in  our  Church,  it 
is  sufficient  for  our  present  design  to  notice  its  several  depart- 
ments: 

1.  Confirming  orders,  by  ordaining  Deacons  and  Elders.  We 
say  confirming,  because  the  orders  are  conferred  by  another  body, 
which  is  independent  of  the  episcopal  office,  both  in  its  organiza- 
tion and  action. 

This  confii-mation  of  orders,  or  ordination,  is  not  by  virtue  of 
a  distinct  and  higher  order.  For,  with  our  great  founder,  we  are 
convinced  that  Bishops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order  in  the 
Christian  ministry.  And  this  has  been  the  sentiment  of  the  Wes- 
leyan  Methodists  from  the  beginning. 

But  it  is  by  virtue  of  an  office  constituted  by  the  body  of  pres- 
byters, for  the  better  order  of  discipline,  for  the  preservation  of 
the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  for  carrying  on  the  work  of  God  in 
the  most  effectual  manner. 

The  execution  of  this  office  is  subject  to  two  important  re- 
strictions, which  would  be  very  irrelevant  to  prelacy,  or  dioc- 
esan episcopacy,  constituted  on  the  basis  of  a  distinct  and 
superior  order.  The  latter  involves  independent  action  in  con- 
ferring orders,  by  virtue  of  authority  inherent  in,  and  exclusively 
appertaining  to,  the  episcopacy.  But  the  former  is  a  delegated 
authority  to  confirm  orders,  the  exercise  of  which  is  dependent 
upon  another  body.  The  Bishop  can  ordain  neither  a  deacon 
nor  an  elder,  without  the  election  of  the  candidate  by  an  Annual 
Conference:  and  in  case  of  such  election  he  has  no  discre- 
tional authority;  but  is  under  obligation  to  ordain  the  person 
elected,  whatever  may  be  his  own  judgment  of  his  qualifications. 
These  are  the  two  restrictions  previously  alluded  to. 

This  is  certainly  a  wise  and  safe  provision,  and  should  never 
be  changed  or  modified  so  as  to  authorize  the  Bishops  to  ordain 
without  the  authority  of  the  ministry.   With  these  facts  in  view, 


192  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


it  is  presumed  that  it  will  be  admitted  by  all  well-informed  and 
candid  men,  that,  so  far  as  the  constitution  of  the  ministry  la 
concerned,  ours  is  a  "moderate  episcopacy." 

The  italics  in  the  foregoing  were  so  placed  by  the 
Bishops.  The  entire  Board  approved  the  deliverance  and 
signed  it.  They  were  Joshua  Soule,  who  knew  Asbury 
and  Coke  and  all  the  fathers,  and  who  wrote  this  Episco- 
pal Address;  Elijah  Hedding,  who  was  a  member  of  the 
Conference  which  formed  the  Constitution,  and  also  knew 
Coke  and  Asbury ;  Beverly  Waugh,  James  O.  Andrew,  and 
Thomas  A.  Morris. 

To  this  '^moderate  episcopacy"  American  MctJiodism 
owes  in  largest  part  its  solidarity  and  homogeneousness. 


CHAPTER  XXV 


The  Third  Rkstrictive  Rule  (Continued) 
"tue  plan  op  oue  itinerant  general  superintendency'^ 

This  Rule  speaks  of  the  episcopacy  as  the  equivalent 
of  a  General  Superintendency. 

While  the  General  Conference  cannot  "do  away  episco- 
pacy," it  is  also  forbidden  to  destroy  "the  plan  of  our 
itinerant  General  Superintendency."  This  plan,  together 
with  the  Constitution  then  formed  and  adopted,  was 
set  forth  by  the  General  Conference  of  1808  in  the 
Discipline.  To  ascertain  the  meaning,  we  must  compre- 
hend its  separate  parts  so  far  as  they  relate  to  the  pre- 
rogatives and  duties  of  the  General  Superintendent. 

The  following  questions  and  answers  reveal  its  contents: 

Question  3.  Of  the  Yearly  Conferences.  "Who  shall  attend  the 
yearly  Conferences? 

Answer.  All  the  traveling  preachers  who  are  In  full  connec- 
tion and  those  who  are  to  be  received  into  full  connection. 

Question  Who  shall  appoint  the  times  of  holding  the  yearly 
Conferences? 

Answer.  The  Bishops,  but  they  shall  allow  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences to  sit  a  week  at  least. 

Question  4  was  introduced  into  the  Discipline  in  the 
General  Conference  of  1792,  and  the  answer  was  then 
simply,  "The  Bishops."  (In  1872,  this  part  was  so  ex- 
tended as  to  read :  "The  Bishops  shall  appoint  the  times 
of  holding  the  Annual  Conferences.") 

In  1804,  after  twelve  years  of  "hurried"  Conferences, 
the  Bishop  often  arriving  but  a  few  minutes  before  the 
time  for  the  beginning  of  the  session,  and  mounting  his 
horse  immediately  after  the  benediction,  having  in  the 
meantime  reduced  discussion  to  a  minimum  as  nearly  as 
193 


194  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


possible,  the  General  Conference  being  determined  to  limit 
his  power  to  adjourn  the  body,  added,  "But  they  shall 
allow  each  Conference  to  sit  a  week  at  least." 

It  should  be  remembered,  that,  in  those  early  days,  there 
were  neither  railroads  nor  steamboats,  and  except  in  the 
vicinity  of  county  seats,  few  roads  worthy  of  the  name. 
Asbury's  rides  on  horseback  of  three  thousand  miles  per 
annum  were  performed  under  every  form  of  hardship. 
Nevertheless,  it  is  true  that  Asbury  was  impatient  of 
discussion  and  desired  as  little  voting  as  possible,  unless 
he  was  the  proposer  or  approver  of  the  question.  These 
facts  account  for  the  mandatory  addition.  The  rule 
persists  to  this  date,  and  should  never  be  repealed;  as 
it  is,  though  the  Bishop  may  adjourn  a  Conference  at  the 
end  of  one  week,  should  he  essay  to  do  so  before  that 
time  and  depart  without  the  consent  of  the  Conference, 
that  body  could  legally  remain  in  session  and  avail  itself 
of  the  rule  for  the  presidency  of  an  Annual  Conference 
in  the  absence  of  a  Bishop. 

However,  should  the  Conference  attempt  to  adjourn 
before  the  Bishop  had  flnislied  the  work  imposed  upon  him 
by  the  Constitution  or  the  General  Conference,  he  could 
refuse  to  put  a  motion  to  adjourn,  however  long  the  body 
had  been  in  session.  It  is  obvious  that  this  power  is 
essential  to  the  working  of  the  "plan"  of  General  Super- 
intendency;  for  could  the  Conference  adjourn  at  will,  it 
could  prevent  the  performance  of  any  or  all  of  the  duties 
imposed  upon  the  Bishop  by  the  "plan." 

Question  5.  Who  shall  appoint  the  places  of  holding  the 
Annual  Conferences? 

Answer.  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  appoint  the  place 
of  its  own  sitting. 

The  foregoing  rules  are  self-explanatory  and  self- 
defending.  The  Bishops  alone  can  determine  the  days 
when  they  can  arrive,  and  the  Conference  alone  can  de- 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


195 


cide  where  it  may  be  best  accommodated,  and  where  its 
sessions  will  be  the  most  useful  in  promoting  the  interests 
of  the  denomination. 

Question  6  concerns  the  method  of  conducting  Annual 
Conferences.  The  answer  shows  that  the  Bishop  shall,  in 
the  presence  of  the  Conference,  inquire  what  preachers  are 
"admitted  on  trial"';  who  "remain  on  trial";  who  "are 
admitted  into  full  connection";  who  are  the  "deacons"; 
who  are  the  "elders" ;  who  "have  been  located  during  the 
year";  who  "have  died  in  the  preceding  year";  who 
are  the  "supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out 
preachers";  whether  all  are  "blameless  in  life,  in  con- 
versation" ;  who  are  "expelled  from  the  connection" ;  what 
"numbers  are  in  the  society";  where  "the  preachers  are 
stationed  this  year." 

THE  DUTIES  OF  A  BISHOP 

In  the  next  section  the  Discipline  of  1808  enumerates 
the  "Duties  of  a  Bishop."  These  are  "to  preside  in  our 
Conferences,  to  fix  the  appointments  of  the  preachers  for 
the  several  circuits,"  etc.,  and  in  the  intervals  of  the 
Conferences,  "to  change,  receive,  and  suspend  preachers 
as  necessity  may  require  and  as  the  Discipline  directs." 

In  addition  to  this  it  requires  the  Bishop  "to  travel 
throughout  the  connection  at  large."  This  law  has  been 
unnecessarily  mystified;  and  what  the  Bishops  were  then 
doing,  and  at  the  present  time  do  to  a  considerable  degree, 
reveals  fully  the  meaning  of  the  requisition.  They  are 
to  attend  and  preside  in  the  Conferences,  and  lohen  not 
so  engaged  are  not  to  remain  exclusively  in  or  near  their 
residences  until  another  li.«t  of  Conferences  demands  their 
presence,  but  are  expected  to  itinerate  among  the 
Churches,  examining,  instructing,  and  preaching. 

The  Bishop  is  the  judge  of  how  he  employs  his  time 
and  strength,  if  he  does  so  in  the  interest  of  the  Church ; 


196  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

but  otherwise  he  is  in  danger  of  official  censure  from  the 
General  Conference.  His  influence  depends  upon  his 
devotion  to  the  "connection  at  large"  and  his  fidelity  in 
fulfilling  the  duties  required  in  the  answer,  "To  oversee 
the  spiritual  and  temporal  business  of  the  societies." 
This  phrase,  "business  of  the  societies,"  appears  first  in 
1787,  and  was  altered  several  times  until  it  was  adopted 
many  years  ago,  as  it  now  exists :  "To  oversee  the  spiritual 
and  temporal  business  of  our  Church." 

The  Discipline  of  1808  contained  this  question  of  great 
import : 

Question.  If  a  Bishop  cease  from  traveliag  at  large  among 
the  people,  shall  he  still  exercise  his  episcopal  office  among  us 
in  any  degree? 

Answer.  If  he  cease  from  traveling  without  the  consent  of 
the  General  Conference,  he  shall  not  thereafter  exercise  the  epis- 
copal office  in  our  Church. 

In  1792,  the  answer  was  made  more  severe,  the  conse- 
quence of  disobeying  being  "he  shall  not  thereafter  exer- 
cise any  ministerial  functions  whatsoever  in  our  Church." 
This  was  changed  in  1804  to  "in  any  degree  the  episcopal 
office  in  our  Church."  The  penalty  is  still  attached  to 
such  legal  neglect. 

This  is  a  stern  but  righteous  decree.  An  indolent,  unin- 
terested Bishop  is  hardly  endurable  under  a  diocesan 
episcopacy,  but  in  an  itinerant  General  Superintendency 
he  would  impose  additional  labors  upon  his  colleagues, 
and  would  be  an  incubus  upon  the  episcopacy  in  the  region 
where  he  resided. 

In  1804  a  time  limit  was  for  the  first  time  placed  upon 
the  appointment  of  pastors  to  stations  and  circuits.  It 
was  in  force  in  1808,  and  was  as  follows: 

To  fix  the  appointments  for  the  several  circuits,  provided  he 
shall  not  allow  any  preacher  to  remain  in  the  same  station  more 
than  two  years  successively;  except  the  presiding  elders,  the 
editors  and  general  book  steward,  the  assistant  editors  and 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


197 


assistant  book  steward,  the  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and 
■worn-out  preachers. 

Another  rule  prevented  the  Bishop  from  allowing  an 
elder  to  preside  in  the  same  district  more  than  "four 
years  successively." 

The  foregoing  questions  and  answers  include  the  sub- 
stance of  "the  plan  of  our  Itinerant  General  Superin- 
tendency." 

Unless  the  Bishop,  presiding  in  the  Annual  Conferences, 
possessed  the  authority  to  lix  the  appointments  of  pastors 
and  district  superintendents,  the  Superintendency  could 
not  be  complete,  and  neither  pastors  nor  Churches  could 
be  constrained,  the  former  to  proceed  to  the  Churches 
assigned  to  them,  and  the  latter  to  receive  the  appointees. 
The  restriction  of  the  time  of  a  pastorate  arose  from  the 
eagerness  of  certain  Churches  to  retain  pastors  and  of 
certain  pastors  to  be  returned  indefinitely.  Although 
such  instances  were  few,  the  clamor  they  made,  the  jeal- 
ousy of  others,  the  annoyance  of  Bishop  Asbury,  and  the 
probability  that  the  unity  of  the  denomination  would  be 
jeoparded  led  to  the  limit  of  two  years  being  imposed. 

The  restrictions  of  the  term  of  the  presiding  eldership 
in  one  district  grew  largely  out  of  the  evil  results  of  the 
protracted  term  of  James  O'Kelly,  who  had  been  presid- 
ing elder  in  the  southern  part  of  Virginia  since  the 
organization  of  the  Church,  and  who  had  been  stationed 
there  continuously  for  several  years  before. 

The  time  limit  respecting  pastors  has  been  changed 
several  times;  beginning  with  two  years  in  1804,  it  was 
increased  to  three  in  1804,  to  five  in  1888,  and  in  1900  was 
removed  entirely.  Similar  changes,  though  not  so  numer- 
ous, have  been  made  in  the  time  limit  of  district  super- 
intendents. However,  these  time  limits  have  no  connection 
with  the  Constitution.  They  are  wholly  in  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  General  Conference. 


198  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

With  the  growth  of  the  Church,  new  responsibilities 
have  fallen  upon  the  Bishops  in  connection  with  the 
various  denominational  societies  that  have  been  founded. 
The  General  Conference  has  constituted  them  ex  officio 
members  of  the  General  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions 
and  of  the  Board  of  Managers,  of  the  Board  of  Home 
Missions  and  Church  Extension,  and  of  other  connectional 
societies.  It  has  established  the  Judicial  Conference,  in 
which  a  Bishop  must  preside  and  decide  all  questions  of 
law  arising  in  its  proceedings,  subject  to  an  appeal  to 
the  General  Conference.  They  are  also  sent  to  countries 
of  which  the  fathers  were  ignorant,  and  on  journeys  which 
the  apostles  of  Christ  never  conceived  possible. 

Bishop  Bowman,  when  asked  what  portion  of  the  year 
he  was  able  to  spend  with  his  family,  after  a  moment's 
reflection,  responded,  "At  the  most,  not  more  than  three 
months."  To  their  specially  assigned  work,  which  includes 
the  general  care  for  a  large  number  of  Conferences  for 
successive  periods  of  six  months,  and  to  their  necessary 
semiannual  meetings,  must  be  added  the  many  demands 
for  the  services  of  the  Bishop  in  dedicating  churches. 
This  is  a  custom  of  incomparable  value,  since  it  impresses 
the  Church  and  the  community,  where  the  dedication  is 
performed,  with  the  solidarity  of  Methodism,  with  its 
Liturgy  and  with  the  regard  which  its  pastors  and  people 
entertain  for  their  chief  officers.  The  Bishops,  however, 
are  unable  to  perform  all  dedications,  but  there  is  no  law 
nor  reason  why  district  superintendents  or  other  minis- 
ters should  not  perform  this  fimction  for  the  Churches. 

All  functions  conferred  by  the  General  Conference  on 
Bishops  outside  of  the  duties  of  the  episcopacy,  and  all 
others  that  are  now  specially  connected  with  the 
work  of  Bishops,  could  be  changed,  added  to,  or  re- 
pealed. But  as  the  General  Conference  cannot  consti- 
tutionally so  load  down  the  Bishops,  that  they  could  not 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


199 


properly  perform  their  normal  duties,  so  the  Bishops 
cannot  constitutionally  assume  functions,  which  from 
their  nature  would  divert  them  from  the  performance  of 
their  episcopal  duties  without  coming  under  the  censure 
of  the  General  Conference. 

The  Thii'd  Restrictive  Rule  does  not  prohibit  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  from  legislating  upon  the  episcopacy  as 
it  deems  best;  provided,  it  does  not  enact  any  rule  or 
system  of  rules,  which  would  do  away  that  episcopacy 
which  existed  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted  or 
prevent  the  exercise  of  its  functions,  or  counterwork  the 
effect  of  the  same. 

It  can  legislate  concerning  ''the  plan  of  our  itinerant 
General  Superintendency,"  provided,  the  principle  or  the 
operation  of  such  enactments  would  not  destroy,  or  tend 
to  destroy,  that  "plan." 

From  the  beginning  the  General  Conference  has  re- 
served to  itself  the  power  of  electing  members  of  Annual 
Conferences  to  certain  positions  in  the  Church,  not  pas- 
toral, such  as  the  corresponding  and  assistant  secretaries 
of  our  connectional  societies,  the  editors  of  the  Church 
periodicals.  These  are  registered  with  the  appointments 
by  the  presiding  Bishop  of  tlie  Conference  to  which  they 
belong.  Also  tlie  editor  of  Zion's  Herald,  chaplains  of 
prisons,  and  the  army  and  navy,  and  various  sanitary  or 
charitable  institutions,  secretaries  and  superintendents 
of  city  missions  and  the  principals  of  institutions  of 
learning,  which  are  under  our  care,  though  not  elected  by 
the  General  Conference,  are  appointed  and  registered  in 
a  similar  manner.  In  addition,  the  General  Conference 
has  enacted  that  a  Bishop  may,  //  requested  hij  an  Annual 
Conference,  appoint  an  agent  to  distribute  tracts,  an 
agent  or  agents  to  promote  temperance,  an  agent  or 
agents  for  the  benefit  of  institutions  of  learning,  an  agent 
for  the  German  Publishing  Fund,  and  agents  for  other 


200  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

benevolent  institutions,  and  also  instructors  in  institu- 
tions of  learning  not  under  our  care.  He  may  also,  if 
requested,  appoint  editors  of  unofficial  papers  or  maga- 
zines, published  in  the  interest  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  one  or  more  members  of  an  Annual  Con- 
ference to  do  evangelistic  work  on  charges. 

At  first  glance  the  power  exercised  by  the  General  Con- 
ference in  connection  with  the  foregoing  appointments, 
especially  those  witb  which  the  Bishop  cannot  deal  with- 
out being  requested  to  do  so  by  the  Annual  Conference, 
would  seem  to  be  an  invasion  of  the  constitutional 
rights  of  the  Bishops;  but  it  does  not  tend  "to  do  away 
the  episcopacy"  or  destroy  "the  plan  of  our  itinerant 
General  Superintendency" ;  and  as  it  is  often  a  relief  to 
the  Bishop,  it  comes  under  the  "full  power"  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church,  conferred  by  the 
Constitution  on  the  General  Conference. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 


The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued) 

POWERS  OF  THE  BISHOP  WHEN  PRESIDING  IN  GENERAL 
CONFERENCE 

For  a  full  interpretation  of  this  important  question, 
an  account  of  the  original  relation  of  the  Bishops  to  the 
Conference  is  necessary.  Early  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  the  prerogatives  of  a  Bishop  became  a  matter  of 
dispute.  In  1797  Asbury  had  passed  through  the  Annual 
Conferences,  nominating  Lee,  Poythress,  and  Whatcoat 
for  Assistant  Bishops. 

It  was  moved  in  the  General  Conference  of  1800  by  a 
prominent  member: 

Whereas,  By  a  vote  of  the  Conference  it  is  determined  that 
another  Bishop  shall  be  elected, 

Resolved,  That  the  Conference  determine,  before  the  vote 
be  canvassed,  the  powers  of  the  new  Bishop,  whether  he  shall 
be  equal  to  Bishop  Asbury,  or  subordinate  to  him.' 

Bishop  Asbury  was  strongly  inclined  to  the  idea  that 
the  new  Bishop  should  be  in  some  sense  subordinate  to 
him.  Several  motions  of  this  nature  were  made.  Asbury 
— one  of  the  best  of  the  men — fasted  and  prayed  before 
he  was  ordained,  and  hoped  that  he  would  "not  be  exalted 
above  measure."  Nevertheless,  he  icas  greatly  "exalted" 
by  the  honor,  and  in  less  than  one  month  after  he  was 
ordained,  he  assumed  full  canonicals — gown,  cassock,  and 
bands ;  but  this  was  so  strongly  opposed  by  preachers  and 
people  that  he  was  soon  compelled  to  resume  his  ordinary 
attire. 

In  1805  Bishop  Coke  proposed  that  the  seven  Confer- 
ences should  be  so  arranged  that  for  the  first  year  he 

■General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  35. 

201 


202  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

should  have  four,  and  Asbury  three,  and  the  next  year, 
he  three  and  Asbury  four.  Whatcoat  was  not  mentioned, 
and  the  only  reason  ever  assigned  for  the  omission  is, 
that  "though  he  was  legally  equal,  he  was  expected  simply 
to  assist  the  older  Bishops." 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  and  in  all  preceding 
ones,  the  Bishops  had  the  same  right  to  speak,  make 
motions,  and  enter  into  debates  as  had  any  person  present. 
For  Bishop  Asbury,  the  patriarch,  to  recognize  any 
restriction  on  this  right  was  not  easy.  This  was  seen 
in  the  opening  of  the  General  Conference  of  1812. 

Bishop  Paine,  after  eulogizing  the  integrity  and 
sagacity  of  Asbury,  says,  that  he  "had  heretofore  exer- 
cised rather  the  prei'Ogatives  of  a  father  than  the  office  of 
a  president,  and  had  never  been  rcmarkahle  for  conduct- 
ing husiness  according  to  the  strict  Rules  of  Order."^ 

May  15,  1812,  after  calling  the  list,  Bishop  Asbury 
arose  and  requested  leave  "to  address  Bishop  McKendree 
in  the  presence  of  the  Conference."  Leave  was  granted, 
and  Bishop  Asbury  then  proceeded  to  speak.  Afterward 
Bishop  McKendree  was  allowed  to  reply.  The  Rev.  Henry 
Smith,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  who  was  present, 
writing  to  Bishop  Paine,  described  the  scene  as  follows: 

As  soon  as  Bishop  McKendree  had  finished  reading  the  plan 
of  business  which  he  had  drawn  up,  Bishop  Asbury  rose  to  his 
feet  and  addressed  the  junior  Bishop  to  the  following  effect: 
"I  have  something  to  say  to  you  before  the  Conference."  The 
junior  also  rose  to  his  feet,  and  they  stood  face  to  face.  Bishop 
Asbury  went  on  to  say:  "This  is  a  new  thing.  I  never  did  busi- 
ness in  this  way,  and  why  is  this  new  thing  introduced?"  The 
junior  Bishop  promptly  replied:  "You  are  our  father,  we  are 
your  sons;  you  never  have  had  need  of  it.  I  am  only  a  brother, 
and  have  need  of  it."  Bishop  Asbury  said  no  more,  but  sat 
down  with  a  smile  on  his  face.- 

The  statement  that  ''he  never  did  business  in  this  way" 


>Paine'a  Life  of  McKendree,  vol.  i,  p.  263. 


21bid..  vol.  i.  p.  264. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE  203 

illustrates  the  ruling  power  that  he  had  exercised.  That 
the  recognition  of  Asbury  by  the  new  incumbent  as 
"father"  pacified  him,  uncovered  in  him  a  common  ti*ait 
of  human  nature. 

In  the  same  Conference  Bishop  McKendree  asked  "if 
the  Conference  thought  he  had  authority  to  give  the  secre- 
tary orders  to  change  some  phrases  in  journalizing, 
provided  there  are  no  changes  of  the  sense."  It  was  voted 
that  "he  be  allowed  to  give  the  secretary  orders," 

In  1840  the  New  York  Conference,  by  resolution, 
requested  the  president  of  the  next  session  of  that  body  to 
deliver  a  discourse  before  the  Conference  on  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Discipline.  This  devolved  upon  Bishop 
Hedding.  The  Providence,  New  England,  and  Maine 
Conferences  afterward  asked  that  the  same  discourse 
might  be  delivered  before  them,  and  all  these  desired  it 
published.  It  was  received  and  generally  approved 
throughout  the  Church.  The  Notes  of  Bishop  Hedding 
are  of  great  value.  As  a  member  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1808,  he  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  dele- 
gated General  Conference,  and  was  elected  Bishop  in  1824. 
He  heard  all  the  discussions,  attended  every  General 
Conference,  and  passed  through  the  troublesome  times 
from  1820  to  1848.  His  exposition  of  the  Constitution 
and  of  the  legislation  of  the  Church  clarified  them  as  they 
had  not  been  before. 

Bishop  Osmon  C.  Baker  entered  the  ministry  in  1839, 
and  was  elected  to  the  episcopacy  in  1852.  He  wrote 
extensively  upon  the  Discipline,  and  his  work  is  still 
regarded  as  an  authority.  In  this  he  states  that  a  "Bishop 
sustains  the  relation  of  moderator  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence. He  represents  no  section  or  interest  of  the  Church ; 
he  can  claim  no  right  to  introduce  motions,  to  make 
speeches,  or  to  cast  votes  on  any  question.  As  president, 
he  can  neither  form  rules  nor  decide  law  questions  in  the 


204  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


General  Conference;  and,  on  mere  questions  of  order, 
there  is  an  appeal  from  his  decision  to  the  deliberative 
body."^ 

Bishop  Baker  refers  for  his  authority  to  his  own 
experience  and  his  conversations  with  the  "fathers,"  to 
the  writings  of  Bishop  Hedding,  and  especially  to  the 
Address  of  the  Bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1844. 

Bishop  Merrill,  in  his  Digest  of  Methodist  Law  (pages 
72,  73),  correctly  gives  the  relation  of  the  Bishop  to  the 
General  Conference  in  these  words: 

But  in  presiding  in  the  General  Conference  the  Bishops  do  not 
decide  questions  of  law.  That  body  is  supreme  in  its  sphere, 
with  only  the  limitations  of  its  Constitution  upon  it,  and  as  it 
enacts  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  Church,  it  puts  its  own 
Interpretation  upon  them.  The  Bishop  in  the  chair  decides  ques- 
tions of  order,  subject,  of  course,  to  appeal,  but  he  strenuously 
refrains  from  any  ruling  that  involves  a  construction  of  the 
law.  ...  As  the  constitutional  president,  while  the  Bishop  may 
not  participate  in  debates,  he  may  lawfully  suggest  what  is 
expedient  in  the  order  of  business,  in  the  interest  of  regularity, 
consistency,  or  economy  of  time. 

To  this  judicious  and  judicial  statement  Bishop  Merrill 
adds  a  paragraph,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Constitution 
and  contrary  to  the  previous  statement,  and  contains  a 
doctrine  which,  if  attempted  to  be  carried  out  by  any 
Bishop,  would  make  a  breach  between  the  episcopacy  and 
the  General  Conference,  introduce  irremediable  confusion, 
and  jeopardize  the  unity  of  the  entire  denomination.  This 
is  the  passage: 

Yet  if  action  were  proposed  which,  in  his  [the  Bishop's]  judg- 
ment, involved  a  violation  of  the  law  without  a  formal  modifica- 
tion of  it,  or  a  breach  of  the  limitations  of  power  imposed  by 
the  Constitution,  it  would  be  his  duty  to  call  attention  to  the 
supposed  infraction,  and  restrain  the  action  of  the  Conference 
if  possible.    Indeed,  a  condition  of  things  is  supposable  in  which 


'Baker  on  the  Discipline,  p. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


205 


it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Bishop  to  refuse  to  entertain  a  mo- 
tion, and  decline  having  any  part  in  the  transaction  of  the  body. 
If  action  should  be  proposed  which  is  contrary  to  the  Con- 
stitution, or  violative  of  vested  rights  protected  thereby,  the 
Bishop  is  bound  to  object,  and  use  all  the  power  of  his  office 
to  preserve  the  organic  law  in  its  integrity.  He  has  the  right 
to  assume  that  the  proposed  action  has  been  hastily  introduced, 
and  to  insist  upon  more  careful  investigation,  and  finally  to 
protest  against  it  in  the  interest  of  law  and  consistency.  If  over- 
ruled, his  right  to  be  heard,  and  have  his  protest  entered  on  the 
Journal,  could  not  be  denied  without  the  most  flagrant  departure 
from  justice,  such  as  is  not  conceivable.  Although  not  a  member 
of  the  General  Conference,  technically  speaking,  the  Bishop  is 
its  lawful  president,  with  rights  superior  in  that  position  to  a 
mere  acting  chairman,  and  he  may  not  be  displaced  or  deprived 
of  his  rights  without  formal  action  suspending  him  or  deposing 
him  from  his  office.  Such  a  conflict  has  never  occurred,  and 
probably  will  never  occur,  and  yet  it  is  supposable,  and  the  con- 
sideration of  its  bearing  is  not  improper  in  the  study  of  the  legal 
rights  and  duties  of  the  parties  under  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church.^ 

But  he  would  not  have  the  right  "to  call  attention  to 
the  supposed  infraction"  without  the  consent  of  the  Con- 
ference. If  he  had  that  right  or  power,  it  is  clear  that 
by  exercising  it  he  would  practically  enter  into  debate 
and  his  protest  would  involve  a  "construction  of  the  law," 
which,  according  to  the  Address  of  the  Bishops  to  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  is  not  within  his  sphere  of 
authority. 

It  would  be  indeed  his  privilege  to  ask  the  Conference 
to  allow  him  to  make  a  statement;  or  he  could  communi- 
cate his  feelings  to  a  member  of  the  body,  who  would 
have  the  right  to  move,  that  the  Bishop  "be  requested  to 
give  his  views."  This  motion  has  frequently  been  made, 
and  usually  the  Conference  has  imanimously  invited  the 
Bishop  to  make  a  nonpartisan  representation. 

The  expression,  that  it  would  be  his  duty  to  "restrain 

^Digest  of  Methodist  Law.  pp.  72,  73. 


206  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

the  action  of  the  Conference  if  possible"  is  unfortunate. 
If  it  mean  anything  more  than  accepting  the  courtesy 
of  the  Conference,  after  it  had  given  its  consent  for  him 
to  spealj,  it  involves  an  attempt  at  usurpation. 

The  statement  that  "a  condition  of  things  is  supposable 
in  which  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Bishop  to  refuse  to 
entertain  a  motion"  is  to  assume  for  the  Bishop  a  power 
that  he  has  not. 

The  implied  warning  that  he  might  "decline  having 
any  part  in  the  transactions  of  the  body"  must  have  been 
made  without  the  recognition  of  the  fact  that,  if  he 
refused  to  continue  in  the  chair,  one  of  the  other  Bishops 
could  take  his  place.  Were  all  the  Bishops  successively 
to  refuse  to  take  the  chair,  the  Constitution  directs  the 
General  Conference,  in  the  absence  of  a  Bishop,  to  elect 
from  its  own  number  a  president  pro  tempore. 

"All  the  power  of  his  [episcopal]  ofSce,"  when  acting 
as  president,  is  limited  to  the  right  to  preside,  and  to 
leave  the  Conference  to  put  its  own  interpretations  upon 
its  actions.  Had  not  the  Constitution  required  a  Bishop, 
if  present,  to  preside,  the  office  of  Bishop  would  not  have 
given  him  the  right  to  preside.  The  powers  which  he  has 
as  a  Bishop,  in  the  absence  of  such  a  separate  requisition, 
cannot  be  applied  to  the  presidency. 

As  a  presiding  ofiScer  in  the  General  Conference  he 
may  think  that  "the  proposed  action  has  been  hastily 
introduced,"  but  he  has  no  right  "to  insist  upon  more 
careful  investigation,"  and  no  right  "to  protest  against 
it  in  the  interest  of  law  and  consistency,"  except  the 
Conference  hy  vote  ask  Mm  to  express  his  views. 

The  declaration  that  "if  overruled,  his  right  to  be  heard, 
and  have  his  protest  entered  on  the  Journal,  could  not  be 
denied  without  the  most  flagrant  departure  from  justice" 
is  incongruous  with  the  Constitution.  The  additional 
statement,  that  "although  not  a  member  of  the  General 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


207 


Conference,  technically  speaking,  the  Bishop  is  its  law- 
ful president,"  is  without  bearing  upon  the  claim  made. 
The  Bishop,  when  presiding,  is  "a  lawful  president,"  and 
also  a  minister  or  a  lav  member  would  be  a  "lawful  presi- 
dent" if  elected  by  the  General  Conference  in  the  absence 
of  a  Bishop. 

The  futility  of  such  an  assumption  may  be  seen  in  the 
fact  that  a  presiding  officer,  attempting  to  restrain  or 
constrain  a  General  Conference,  would  leave  the  chair 
at  the  adjournment  of  the  session.  He  might  be  succeeded 
by  a  Bishop  wholly  out  of  sympathy  with  his  views,  and 
the  very  measures  that  he  had  denounced  might  immedi- 
ately be  passed.  Furthermore,  if  a  Bishop  were  to  be 
so  unreasonable  as  to  attempt  such  usurjiations,  he  could 
be  at  once  suspended  and  put  upon  trial,  and  this  method 
could  be  taken  with  his  successors  in  the  chair,  if  they 
pursued  a  similar  course. 

In  concluding  his  remarks  Bishop  Merrill  says.  ''Such 
a  conflict  has  never  occurred,  and  prohahlij  tciU  never 
occur."  But  this  is  a  serious  error,  for,  as  is  hereafter 
shown,  such  a  conflict  did  occur,  and  came  within  a  hair- 
breadth of  disrupting  the  Church. 

The  only  constitutional  way  that  a  Bishop  can  be 
actively  connected  with  the  proceedings  of  the  General 
Conference  is  by  presiding.  When  not  acting  in  that 
capacity,  he  is  an  interested  spectator,  ready  to  take  the 
chair  when  it  is  assigned  to  him  by  his  colleagues.  Never- 
theless, such  is,  and  should  forever  be,  the  veneration  of 
the  Church  for  its  General  Superintendents  that  a  mes- 
sage from  the  Board  of  Bishops  is  respectfully  received 
at  any  time ;  and  a  motion  to  invite  one  of  them  to  address 
the  Conference  on  a  subject  of  importance  to  the  episco- 
pacy or  the  General  Conference  would  not  be  voted  down, 
except  in  such  rare  cases  as  to  make  it  plainly  obvious 
to  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Conference  that. 


208  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


either  in  time  or  substance,  such  an  address  would  not 
promote  reverence  for  the  episcopacy  or  the  welfare  of 
the  Church. 

The  immovable  foundation  for  the  foregoing  exposition 
of  the  "Powers  of  the  Bishop  when  presiding  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference"  is  constructed  from  the  history  of  the 
Church,  and  the  following  united  episcopal  utterance  in 
the  Address  of  the  Bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1844: 

Presiding  in  General  and  Annual  Conferences 

There  is  a  marked  difference  in  the  relations  the  president 
sustains  to  these  two  bodies.  The  General  Conference,  being  the 
highest  judicatory  of  the  Church,  is  not  subject  to  the  official 
direction  and  control  of  the  president  any  further  than  the  order 
of  business  and  the  preservation  of  decorum  are  concerned;  and 
even  this  is  subject  to  rules  originating  in  the  body.  The  right 
to  transact  business,  with  respect  to  matter,  mode,  and  order  of 
time,  is  vested  in  the  Conference,  and  limited  only  by  constitu- 
tional provisions;  and  of  these  provisions,  so  far  as  their  official 
acts  are  concerned,  the  Conference,  and  not  the  president,  must  be 
the  judge.' 


'General  Conference  JourTioi,  1844,  vol.  ii,  p.  155. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 


The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  (Continued) 

THE  AMENABILITY  OF  BISHOPS 

The  Bishop's  amenabilitj  to  the  General  Conference 
for  his  conduct  is  protected  by  this  Restrictive  Rule. 

Trial  and  acquittal,  or  reproof,  suspension,  and  deposi- 
tion or  expulsion,  come  within  the  scope  of  the  "full 
power"  given  to  the  General  Conference.  But  it  would 
be  unconstitutional  to  suspend,  to  depose,  or  to  expel  a 
Bishop  without  a  trial,  upon  a  charge  of  improper  con- 
duct, and  conviction  for  the  same. 

Unless  properly  guarded  and  vigilantly  watched,  the 
oflSce  of  a  Bishop — as  in  the  case  with  a  life  tenure  in  the 
state — is  as  dangerous  in  the  hands  of  the  unwise,  uncon- 
scientious, or  tyrannical  as  it  is  beneficial  when  possessed 
by  discreet  and  good  men,  who  use  their  power  wholly 
for  the  advantage  of  the  Church  or  the  nation ;  for,  in  all 
ages,  there  have  been  occasional  instances,  arising  from 
the  growth  of  years,  of  exaggerated  individual  peculiari- 
ties; and  under  all  forms  of  episcopacy,  some  Bishops 
have  been  tyrannical  and  some  have  substituted  personal 
government  for  official,  thus  manifesting  obstinacy  rather 
than  genuine  episcopal  firmness.  Hence,  only  self-con- 
trolled, sympathetic,  spiritual,  and  well-tried  men  should 
be  intrusted  with  so  great  an  office.  Their  administra- 
tion should  conform  strictly  to  the  laws  of  the  Church, 
not  only  for  consistency's  sake,  but  as  an  example  to  the 
clergy  and  laity;  and  should  a  Bishop  become  heretical  in 
vital  points,  immoral,  or  neglectful  of  his  work — dis- 
agreeable as  it  is — for  self-protection,  charges  should  be 
made  and  minutely  examined,  and  if  found  true,  such 
209 


210  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Bishop  should  be  convicted  and  reproved,  suspended  or 
deposed.  Therefore  the  Discipline  of  1808  contained  the 
following : 

Question  4,  §  4.  To  whom  is  the  Bishop  amenable  for  his 
conduct?  Answer.  To  the  General  Conference,  who  have  power 
to  expel  him  for  improper  conduct  if  they  see  it  necessary. 

In  1872  the  answer  was  altered  by  striking  out  after 
the  words,  "who  shall  have  power"  the  words  "to  expel 
him  for  improper  conduct  if  they  see  it  necessary"  and 
inserting  "to  order  the  manner  of  his  trial." 

The  original  answer  was  retained  for  more  than  eighty 
years;  but  from  the  Discipline  of  1908  the  question  is 
omitted,  and  under  title  "The  Trial  and  Appeal  of 
Bishops,"  the  first  paragraph  is  "A  Bishop  is  answerable 
for  his  conduct  to  the  General  Conference,  which  shall 
have  power  to  order  the  manner  of  his  trial." 

The  preliminary  steps  to  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  are,  in 
substance,  as  follows:  When  a  Bishop  is  accused  of  im- 
moral conduct,  the  district  superintendent  within  whose 
district  the  said  immorality  is  alleged  to  have  been  com- 
mitted, should  call  to  his  aid  four  traveling  elders,  who 
shall  carefully  inquire  into  the  case,  and  if  they,  or  a 
majority  of  them,  should  conclude  that  there  is  reasonable 
ground  for  such  accusation,  they,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
shall  prepare  and  sign  the  proper  charge  and  notify  the 
Bishop  of  the  same,  and  shall  give  notice  thereof  to 
another  of  the  Bishops.  Said  Bishop,  so  notified,  shall 
convene  a  Judicial  Conference,  which  shall  have  full 
power  to  try  the  accused  and  suspend  him  from  the  func- 
tions of  his  office,  depose  him  from  the  ministry,  or  expel 
him  from  the  Church,  as  they  may  deem  the  offense 
requires.    One  of  the  Bishops  shall  preside  at  the  trial. 

In  the  case  of  imprudent  conduct,  the  district  super- 
intendent within  whose  district  the  alleged  offense 
occurred,  must  take  with  him  two  traveling  elders  and 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


211 


admonish  the  offending  Bishop.  In  the  case  of  a  second 
offense,  one  of  the  Bishops,  together  with  three  traveling 
elders  shall  call  upon  him  and  reprehend  and  admonish 
him;  or,  if  he  still  persists  in  his  imprudence,  he  shall 
then  be  tried  in  the  manner  ordered  above. 

If  it  is  alleged  that  immorality  or  imprudence  has 
been  committed  without  the  bounds  of  any  district,  the 
district  superintendent  within  whose  district  the  Bishop 
resides  shall  proceed  as  hereinbefore  specified. 

When  a  Bishop  disseminates,  publicly  or  privately,  doc- 
trines contrary  to  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  other 
Standards,  the  same  process  is  to  be  observed.  A  com- 
plaint against  the  administration  of  a  Bishop  may  be 
forwarded  to  the  General  Conference,  and  entertained 
there,  provided  that,  in  its  judgment,  the  Bishop  has  had 
due  notice  that  such  complaint  would  be  made. 

The  Discipline  also  provides  that: 

If  charges  of  immoral  conduct  are  made  against  a  Missionary- 
Bishop  during  the  interval  between  the  sessions  of  the  General 
Conference,  the  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  shall  appoint  eleven  of 
their  number,  being  ministers,  to  investigate  the  case.  A  General 
Superintendent  shall  preside  over  the  Committee  of  Investiga- 
tion, and  shall  cause  a  correct  record  of  the  charges,  specifica- 
tions, proceedings,  vote,  and  judgment  in  the  investigation  to  be 
kept  and  transmitted  to  the  next  General  Conference.  If  the 
Committee  of  Investigation  find  the  charges  sustained,  they  may 
suspend  the  accused  Missionary  Bishop  until  the  meeting  of  the 
next  General  Conference.' 

The  foregoing  conditions  and  manner  of  the  trial,  not 
being  in  the  Constitution,  are  determinable  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  and  therefore  are  matters  of  legislation. 

The  Address  of  the  Bishops  to  the  General  Conference 
of  1844  contains  the  following: 

There  are  several  points  in  this  system  which  are  of  primary 
importance,  and  on  that  account  should  be  clearly  understood. 
The  office  of  a  Bishop  or  Superintendent,  according  to  our  eccle- 

^Discipline,  1908,  pp.  227.  228. 


212  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

siastical  system,  is  almost  exclusively  executive;  wisely  limited 
in  its  powers,  and  guarded  by  such  checks  and  responsibilities  as 
can  scarcely  fail  to  secure  the  ministry  and  membership  against 
any  oppressive  measures,  even  should  these  officers  so  far  forget 
the  sacred  duties  and  obligations  of  their  holy  vocation  as  to 
aspire  to  be  lords  over  God's  heritage. 

So  far  from  being  irresponsible  in  their  office,  they  are  amen- 
able to  the  General  Conference,  not  only  for  their  moral  conduct, 
and  for  the  doctrines  they  teach,  but  also  for  the  faithful  ad- 
ministration of  the  government  of  the  Church,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Discipline,  and  for  all  decisions  which  they 
ma,ke  on  questions  of  ecclesiastical  law.  In  all  these  cases  this 
body  [the  General  Conference]  has  original  jurisdiction,  and  may 
prosecute  to  final  issue  in  expulsion,  from  which  decision  there 
is  no  appeal.^ 

It  is  a  notable  fact  that  during  the  one  hundred  and 
twenty-eiglit  years  of  the  existence  of  the  Methodist 
episcopacy,  the  trial  of  a  Bishop  has  not  been  found 
necessary. 

RESIGNATION  OF  BISHOPS 

The  first  to  propose  the  resignation  of  his  episcopal 
oflSce  was  Bishop  Asbury.  In  his  Journal  Asbury  wrote 
as  follows: 

I  must  confess  I  never  felt  so  great  a  resolution  to  resign  the 
General  Superintendency  as  I  do  now;  and  if  matters  do  not 
work  more  to  my  mind,  it  is  highly  probable  I  shall:  my  prayers 
and  counsel  will  be  turned  this  way  until  next  General  Con- 
ference.^ 

Jesse  Lee,  so  far  as  he  goes,  is  fully  as  reliable  as  the 
Journals  of  that  early  time,  and  frequently  where  he 
differs  from  them  in  the  descriptive  aspect  of  complicated 
business,  he  is  suported  by  other  leaders  of  Methodist 
legislation.  In  his  History  of  the  Metliodists  (page  265) 
he  says : 

Some  time  previous  to  the  meeting  of  the  preachers  in  that 
Conference  [the  third  regular  General  Conference,  which  began 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1844,  vol.  ii,  p.  154. 
nbid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  416. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


213 


in  Baltimore  on  the  6th  of  May,  1800,  and  continued  until  the 
20th]  Mr.  Asbury  had  said  that  when  they  met  he  would  resign 
his  office  as  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist  connection,  and 
would  take  his  seat  in  the  Conference  on  a  level  with  the  elders. 
He  wrote  to  several  of  the  preachers  in  different  parts  of  the 
connection,  and  informed  them  of  his  intention,  and  engaged 
other  preachers  to  write  to  their  brethren  in  the  ministry,  and 
to  inform  them  of  his  intention  to  resign.  Withal  he  wrote  his 
resignation  with  an  intention  to  deliver  it  in  to  the  Conference 
as  soon  as  they  met,  and  to  have  it  read  in  their  first  meeting. 
He  said  he  was  so  weak  and  feeble  both  in  body  and  mind,  that 
he  was  not  able  to  go  through  the  fatigues  of  his  office. 

When  Conference  met  and  proceeded  to  business,  they  first 
took  up  Mr.  Asbury's  case  thus: 

"Q.  Whereas,  Mr.  Asbury  has  signified  his  intention  of  re- 
signing his  official  station  in  our  Church  on  account  of  his  weak- 
ness of  body,  what  is  the  sense  of  the  Conference  on  this 
occasion? 

"A.  1.  The  General  Conference  consider  themselves  under 
many  and  great  obligations  to  Mr.  Asbury  for  the  many  and 
great  services  which  he  has  rendered  to  this  connection. 

"2.  This  Conference  do  earnestly  entreat  Mr.  Asbury  for  a 
continuation  of  his  services  as  one  of  the  General  Superintendents 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  far  as  his  strength  will 
permit." 

Mr.  Asbury  told  the  Conference  that  he  was  still  feeble  both 
in  body  and  mind,  but  was  much  better  than  he  had  been  for 
some  time  before;  and,  notwithstanding  he  had  been  inclined  to 
resign  his  office,  he  now  felt  willing  to  do  anything  he  could  to 
serve  the  connection,  and  that  the  Conference  might  require  of 
him. 

The  record  in  the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference 
of  1800  differs  from  the  report  in  Lee's  History,  but  does 
not  conflict  with  it,  the  former  having  more  particulars. 

In  the  history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  but 
one  elder,  elected  and  ordained  to  the  episcopacy,  has 
resigned  the  office.  Joshua  Soule,  having  been  elected 
in  1820,  declined  ordination.  Wilbur  Fisk  and  James  R. 
Day  also  declined  ordination  and  remained  elders  in  their 
respective  Conferences. 


214  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


On  the  tenth  of  May,  in  the  General  Conference  of  1852, 
three  of  the  General  Superintendents — Beverly  Waugh, 
Thomas  A.  Morris,  and  Edmund  S.  Janes — presented  a 
communication  from  Bishop  Hamline  tendering  his  resig- 
nation of  the  episcopal  office.  This  was  read  to  the  Con- 
ference, as  was  a  letter  from  his  physician.  His  parch- 
ment of  ordination  to  the  episcopacy  was  also  presented. 

The  Conference  referred  the  communication  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  episcopacy,  which  on  the  following  day, 
reported : 

Whereas,  It  has  pleased  Almighty  God  deeply  to  afflict  our 
beloved  Bishop  Hamline;  and, 

Whereas,  He  has  been  laid  aside  from  active  service  thereby; 
therefore, 

Resolved,  1.  That  we  sincerely  sympathize  with  our  beloved 
Superintendent  in  his  afflictions. 

Resolved,  2.  That,  having  fully  examined  his  administration 
for  the  last  four  years,  his  administration  and  character  be,  and 
hereby  are,  approved. 

Whereas,  Bishop  Hamline  has  tendered  his  resignation  in  the 
following  language,  to  wit:  "And  now  I  think  that  the  circum- 
stances warrant  my  declining  the  office.  Eight  years  ago,  I  felt 
that  the  Divine  Spirit  had  strangely  called  me  to  the  office.  I 
now  feel  that  the  same  Providence  permits  me  to  retire.  I  there- 
fore tender  my  resignation,  and  request  to  be  released  from  my 
official  responsibilities,  as  soon  as  the  way  is  prepared  by  the 
Episcopal  Committee;"  therefore. 

Resolved,  3,  That  the  resignation  of  Bishop  Hamline  of  his 
office  as  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is  accepted.' 

The  first  and  second  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted.  While  the  third  resolution  was  pending  J.  A. 
Collins  submitted  the  following,  as  a  substitute  for  the 
said  resolution : 

Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences, 
in  General  Conference  assembled,  that  the  Bishops  be,  and  they 
hereby  are,  requested  to  return  to  Bishop  Hamline  his  parchment. 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1852,  vol.  iii,  pp.  41,  42. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


215 


accompanied  by  a  communication  informing  him  tliat  tliis  Gen- 
eral Conference  declines  accepting  his  resignation  as  a  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  grants  him  un- 
restricted permission,  and  advises  him  to  adopt  and  pursue  such 
a  course  for  the  restoration  of  his  health  as  his  judgment  may 
dictate.' 

This  resolution,  after  the  yeas  and  nays  had  been 
called,  and  ordered,  by  a  vote  of  161  yeas  to  10  nays,  was 
laid  on  the  table. 

In  the  debate  on  the  third  resolution  important  speeches 
were  made  by  men  of  greatest  ability  and  experience. 

Nathan  Bangs  said  that  no  man  had  a  higher  respect 
for  Bishop  Hamline  and  the  episcopal  ofBce  than  he,  but 
he  had  other  reasons  than  those  assigned  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  for  approving  the  report.  He  thought 
that  the  present  was  a  fair  opportunity  to  set  a  prece- 
dent; and  that  he  did  "not  consider  the  doctrine  once  a 
Bishop,  always  a  Bishop  our  doctrine." 

Durbin  finished  his  remarks  thus:  "Bishop  Hamline  is 
competent  to  resign,  and  the  Conference  is  competent  to 
accept  his  resignation." 

After  the  third  resolution  was  adopted,  the  report  was 
amended  by  appending  the  following  resolution,  sub- 
mitted by  J.  A.  Collins,  and  adopted  by  the  Conference: 

Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences, 
in  General  Conference  assembled,  that  the  Bishops  be,  and  hereby 
are,  respectfully  requested  to  convey  to  Bishop  Hamline  the  ac- 
ceptance of  his  resignation  as  a  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  by  the  General  Conference,  accompanied  with 
a  communication  expressing  the  profound  regard  of  this  body, 
that  the  condition  of  his  health,  has,  in  his  judgment  rendered 
it  proper  for  him  to  relinquish  his  official  position;  and  assure 
him  also  of  our  continued  confidence  and  affection,  and  that  our 
fervent  prayers  will  be  offered  to  the  throne  of  grace  that  his 
health  may  be  restored  and  his  life  prolonged  to  the  Church.- 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1852,  vol.  iii,  p.  42. 
2Ibid.,  vol.  iii,  p.  43. 


216  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Bishops  Waugh,  Morris,  and  Janes  closed  the  letter 
which  they  sent,  together  with  a  certified  extract  from 
the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference,  setting  forth  the 
acceptance  of  the  resignation  from  his  episcopal  oflSce, 
in  these  words :  "Be  assured,  Rev.  and  dear  Brother,  that 
in  retiring  from  the  episcopacy,  you  bear  with  you  our 
high  esteem,  our  warm  fraternal  affections,  and  our  best 
wishes  for  your  future  welfare." 

His  resignation  divested  Leonidas  Lent  Hamline  of 
the  title  and  authority  of  General  Superintendent,  and 
as  he  had  lost  his  membershinp  in  the  Ohio  Conference 
when  he  was  ordained  Bishop,  he  now  became  simply  a 
local  preacher,  and  so  described  himself,  a  short  time  after 
his  resignation,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend,  which  was  made 
public.  At  his  own  request,  and  without  formality,  he 
was  readmitted  in  1852  to  the  Ohio  Conference,  and  his 
name  was  placed  in  the  answer  to  the  question :  "Who  are 
the  superannuated  or  worn-out  preachers?" 

THE  LIFE  TENURE  OP  BISHOPS 

When  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  organized 
Wesley's  imperial  power  was  transformed  into  influence; 
his  will  was  no  longer  regarded  as  the  edict  of  a  sovereign 
but  as  the  advice  of  a  venerated  father.  Thereafter,  abso- 
lute power  inhering  in  the  Conferences  which  met  annu- 
ally, they  could  at  any  time  have  suspended,  deposed,  or 
removed  either  Coke  or  Asbury.  But  in  the  absence  of 
any  such  action  it  was  assumed  that  the  General  Super- 
intendents, or  Bishops,  would  continue  to  hold  oflice; 
and  there  were  no  annual  reelections  of  Bishops  and  no 
propositions  -for  such.  This  being  the  common  under- 
standing, no  distinct  reference  was  made  to  the  subject 
in  the  Discipline.  But  at  the  request  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1796  Bishops  Coke  and  Asbury  appended 
Explanatory  Notes  to  the  Discipline  of  that  year.  These 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


217 


also  had  the  sanction  of  the  General  Confei'ence  of  1800. 
They  saj  that  "The  Bishops  are  obliged  to  travel  till  the 
General  Conference  pronounces  them  worn  out  or  super- 
annuated," and  add : 

If  an  episcopacy  has  neither  the  dignity  which  arises  from 
these  worldly  trappings  [referring  to  those  who  "endeavor  to 
preserve  their  dignity  by  large  salaries,  splendid  dresses,  and 
other  appendages  of  pomp  and  splendor"],  nor  that  infinitely  su- 
perior dignity  which  is  the  attendant  of  labor,  of  suffering,  and 
enduring  hardship  for  the  cause  of  Christ,  and  of  a  venerable  old 
age,  the  concluding  scene  of  a  life  devoted  to  the  service  of  God, 
it  instantly  becomes  the  disgrace  of  a  Church  and  the  just  ridi- 
cule of  the  world. 

Those  who  established  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church 
recognized  that  this  was  the  claim  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  A  large  part  of  their  contention  was 
that  they  were  opposed  to  the  life  tenure  and  to  the  theory 
of  the  episcopacy  which  the  Church  imbedded  in  the 
Constitution. 

Nicholas  Snethen,  one  of  the  most  capable  men  of  uni- 
versal Methodism,  in  speaking  of  Asbury,  says:  "When- 
ever he  was  accused  of  partiality  his  standing  reply  was, 
*I  am  set  for  the  defense  of  the  gospel,'  meaning  the  trav- 
eling plan;  but  it  so  happened  that  this  defense  was 
identical  with  the  defense  of  the  unlimited  poivcr  which 
he  held  for  life." 

A  passage  fi'om  the  speech  of  Leonidas  L.  Hamline,  in 
the  General  Conference  of  1S44,  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
episcopacy  to  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference  will 
not  bear  close  inspection.    His  words  are: 

Our  Church  Constitution  recognizes  the  episcopacy  as  an  ab- 
straction, and  leaves  this  body  to  work  it  into  a  concrete  form 
in  any  hundred  or  more  ways  we  may  be  able  to  invent.  We 
may  make  one,  five,  or  twenty  Bishops;  and,  if  we  please  one 
for  each  Conference.  We  may  refuse  to  elect  another  until  all 
die  or  resign;  and  then,  to  maintain  the  episcopacy,  which  we  are 


218  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


bound  to  do,  we  must  elect  one  at  least.  As  to  his  term,  we  may 
limit  it  at  pleasure,  or  leave  it  undetermined.  But  in  this  case 
is  it  undeterminable?  Certainly  not.  The  power  which  elected 
may  then  displace.  In  all  civil  constitutions,  as  far  as  I  know, 
not  to  fix  an  officer's  term  is  to  suspend  it  on  the  will  of  the 
appointing  power.  Cabinet  ministers  and  secretaries  are  ex- 
amples. No  officer,  as  such,  can  claim  incumbency  for  life,  unlesa 
such  a  term  be  authoritatively  and  expressly  fixed  upon.' 

This  was  plausible,  and  being  delivered  with  the  ora- 
torical power  of  a  Webster,  produced  a  great  effect;  but 
on  testing  it  by  the  whole  of  the  Third  Restrictive  Rule, 
it  will  appear  that  the  assertions  greatly  exaggerate  the 
powers  of  the  General  Conference.  Hamline  rested 
upon  only  one  branch  of  the  Rule.  The  General  Confer- 
ence "shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part  of  our  govern- 
ment so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy." 

The  Methodist  Episcopacy  is  not  an  "abstraction"  but 
concrete  and  well  defined.  It  can,  indeed,  be  constitu- 
tionally "worked  out"  in  any  one  of  a  possible  hundred 
ways;  but  only  if  they  he  such  as  not  to  ''do  away 
episcopacy.'' 

The  second  part  of  the  rule  confirms  and  elaborates 
the  first.  By  it  the  word  "episcopacy"  is  made  equivalent 
to  "General  Superintendency,"  and  to  protect  this  from 
any  vandal  hand,  the  restriction  adds  "or  the  plan  of  our 
Itinerant  General  Superintendency." 

To  limit  a  Bishop  to  "each  Conference"  would  destroy 
the  existing  "plan  of  our  Itinerant  General  Superin- 
tendency." 

To  refuse  to  elect  a  Bishop  "till  all  have  resigned  or 
died,"  and  then  to  "elect  but  one"  would  surely  defeat 
the  operation  of  the  Itinerant  General  Sui>erintendeucy 
of  the  Church, 

The  analogy  drawn  between  the  method  of  determining 
the  duration  of  the  term  of  office  in  civil  constitutions 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1844,  vol.  ii,  pp.  129,  130 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


219 


and  that  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is  fatally 
defective.  For,  from  the  time  the  episcopal  office  was 
instituted,  the  life  tenure  was  assumed,  and  there  was  no 
more  need  to  specify  it  in  the  Restrictive  Rule  than  for 
specifying  the  separate  parts  of  the  plan.  It  is  taken  for 
granted,  although  not  definitely  stated  in  any  law  of  the 
Church,  that  a  "traveling"  preacher  retains  his  member- 
ship in  the  Annual  Conference  until  death,  or  until  he 
withdraws,  locates,  or  is  located,  deposed,  or  expelled. 
An  attempt  to  exclude  him,  without  trial  or  an  oppor- 
tunity to  defend  himself,  would  be  contrary  to  law  and 
equity. 

To  establish  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the  life 
tenure  of  Bishops  was  definitely  understood  and  acknowl- 
edged by  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  which  at  the 
very  time  was  engaged  in  forming  the  Constitution,  the 
copy  of  the  certificate  of  ordination  of  William  McKendree 
to  the  office  of  Bishop  is  here  given : 

Know  all  men  by  these  presents,  that  I,  Francis  Asbury  .  .  . 
[Here  follows  an  account  of  his  own  ordination  by  Dr.  Coke  and 
three  elders.] 

And  now  be  it  known  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  William 
McKendree  was  ordained  Deacon  in  the  year  1790,  and  I  did  set 
him  apart  to  the  office  of  an  Elder  by  my  hands,  in  December  of 
the  year  1791.  I  have,  this  eighteenth  day  of  May,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  eight,  set  apart  William  McKendree,  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands  and  prayer,  assisted  by  Freeborn  Garrettson, 
Philip  Bruce,  Jesse  Lee,  and  Thomas  Ware,  all  of  them  Elders 
in  the  Church;  to  the  oflBce  and  work  of  a  Superintendent  or 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  (after  he  had  been 
elected  by  a  majority — i.  e.,  95  out  of  128  members  of  General 
Conference)  as  a  man  whom  we  judge  well  qualified  for  the 
office  of  a  Superintendent,  and  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  and  fit  to  preside  over  and  feed  the  flock 
of  Christ,  so  long  as  Ms  spirit,  practice,  and  doctrine  is  such  as 
hecometh  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  and  he  shall  submit  to  the  Dis- 
cipline and  Order  of  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
America. 


220  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

And  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and  seal,  this  eighteenth 
of  May,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
eight. 

Feancis  Asbuby, 
Jesse  Lee, 

Feeeboen  Gaebettson, 
Thomas  Waee, 
Philip  Beuce. 

From  the  election  of  Francis  Asbury  to  the  ofiBce  of 
Bishop  until  the  present  time  the  Church  has  proceeded 
upon  the  assumption  that  a  Bishop — unless  he  should  of 
his  own  motion  resign — is  elected  for  life, .  or  good  be- 
havior, "although  if  he  be  enfeebled  in  body  or  mind, 
he  may  be  superannuated,  but  still  bears  the  title  of  his 
office,  and  is  supported  by  the  funds  from  which  the  sup- 
port of  the  effective  Bishops  is  drawn." 

Superannuation  does  not  come  within  the  Third  Restric- 
tive Rule.  It  is  determined  by  the  General  Conference  as 
is  superannuation  of  members  of  the  Annual  Conference. 
A  Bishop  may  ask  to  be  superannuated,  as  did  Stephen 
M.  Merrill,  or  the  General  Conference  may  relieve  from 
work  such  Bishops  as,  in  its  judgment,  come  rightly  under 
the  provision  for  the  same.  In  either  case  they  may  have 
such  functions  and  honors  as  are  set  forth  under  the  title, 
"Superannuated  Bishops,"  in  Discipline  of  1908. 

The  utility  of  this  plan  is  confirmed  by  its  working, 
especially  when  compared  with  the  growth  of  denomi- 
nations which  are  without  it,  or  do  not  possess  in  a  large 
degree  its  equivalent.  The  detailed  history  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  and  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  other  Methodist  bodies,  whose  episco- 
pacy has  a  life  tenure,  confirms  its  inestimable  value. 

Were  Bishops  chosen  for  a  limited  term,  the  number 
of  elections  would  be  greatly  increased,  reelections  would 
be  thought  necessary  to  a  vindication,  and  scheming 
combinations  be  held  constantly  in  view.   Bishops  would 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


221 


find  it  impossible  to  keep  out  of  controversies,  which 
would  materially  weaken  their  influence,  and,  being 
unable  to  visit  within  a  limited  period  the  entire  con- 
nection, they  would  rarely  lose  their  original  sectional 
sympathy.  Some,  if  not  all,  Bishops,  knowing  that  every 
disappointed  minister  or  Church  would  have  the  power 
to  combine  with  others  against  their  reelection,  would 
be  made  timid  in  their  work. 

As  ministers  elected  to  the  episcopacy  are  of  mature 
years,  and  there  is  no  office  so  high  or  permanent  to  tempt 
ambition,  the  life  tenure  guarantees  a  larger  average  of 
impartiality,  in  dealing  with  pastors  and  Churches,  than 
could  reasonably  be  expected  under  an  episcopacy  subject 
to  51  time  limit. 

The  General  Superintendency,  ivith  the  life  tenure,  is 
the  only  connectional  position  of  permanence  in  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  and  is  therefore  its  most  re- 
vered office.  It  maintains  the  stability  of  the  denomina- 
tion and  its  uniformity  in  operation. 

Successive  General  Conferences  do  not  consist  of  the 
same  members,  although  a  minority,  by  the  favor  and 
will  of  their  constituents,  may  be  members  of  several. 
Each  Conference  is  created,  performs  its  work,  and  dies; 
but  the  General  Superintendency  survives  the  birth, 
tenure,  and  dissolution  of  General  Conferences,  and  is 
preeminently  qualified  to  preserve  and  transmit  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Church  throughout  the  generations. 

The  reverence  with  which  the  life  tenure  invests  the 
Bishop  is  invaluable  in  a  country  such  as  the  United 
States,  and  especially  in  a  Church  which  puts  forth  no 
prelatical  claims. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 


The  Third  Restrictive  Rule  {Continued) 

MISSIONARY  BISHOPS 

For  many  years  much  diflflculty  was  encountered  in 
conducting  the  Mission  in  Africa — ^the  first  foreign  Mis- 
sion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  distance 
was  great,  the  climate  dangerous,  and  the  expense,  neces- 
sary for  a  Bishop  to  visit  the  field,  onerous.  A  resolu- 
tion to  enlai'ge  the  Third  Restrictive  Rule  so  as  to  author- 
ize the  ordination  of  a  Missionary  Bishop  was  made  in 
the  General  Conference  of  1852,  but  was  lost  by  73  to  87. 
The  subject,  on  motion  of  Durbin,  corresponding  secre- 
tary of  Missions,  was  indefinitely  postponed.  In  1853 
Bishop  Levi  Scott  visited  Africa,  and  after  making  a 
thorough  inspection,  returned  with  a  firm  conviction  that 
the  Mission  could  not  prosper  except  under  local  episcopal 
superintendence. 

The  other  Bishops,  agreeing  with  their  colleague's  views, 
devoted  a  part  of  their  Episcopal  Address  in  1856  to  the 
subject.  In  due  time  the  Committee  on  Missions  intro- 
duced the  subject  in  the  concrete  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  we  recommend  the  appointment  of  a  Mission- 
ary Bishop  who  shall  reside  in  Liberia,  on  the  western  coast  of 
Africa,  or  in  its  vicinity,  having  episcopal  jurisdiction  in  Africa 
only.' 

On  this  resolution  a  debate  followed,  incisive,  compre- 
hensive, and  worthy  of  the  issue.  Quigley  inquired  if 
the  resolution  would  not  conflict  with  that  part  of  the 
Third  Restrictive  Rule  which  provides  for  the  perpetuity 
of  a  General  Superintendencij.  He  set  forth  that  they 
only  wished  to  make  a  temporary  arrangement  which 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1856,  vol.  iii,  p.  56. 

222 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE  223 

would  look  forward  to  the  establishment  of  an  independ- 
ent Church  in  Africa.  The  redoubtable  Collins  opposed 
the  resolution,  declaring  it  would  "establish  a  diocesan 
episcopacy  and  destroy  the  Itinerant  General  Superin- 
tendency,"  and  denied  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  was  confined  to  the  United  States. 
He  exclaimed:  "Is  Africa  in  the  United  States?  Was 
Canada  in  the  United  States  when  it  was  in  connection 
with  us?  Was  Texas  in  the  United  States  when  it  ex- 
isted as  the  Lone  Star  Republic?  The  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  can  extend  its  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
anywhere  throughout  the  globe."  He  averred  that  he  had 
no  objection  to  electing  a  Bishop  to  go  to  Africa,  but 
never  would  he  give  his  vote  for  the  election  of  a  man 
whose  jurisdiction  was  to  be  limited  to  Africa.  He 
moved  to  strike  out  the  part  which  limited  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Bishop  to  Africa  alone. 

Durbin  said  the  Constitution  was  to  be  interpreted 
partly  by  the  history  and  the  circumstances  of  the  times, 
and  we  must  interpret  an  article  under  the  rule  of  neces- 
sity. "In  the  providence  of  God  the  time  may  come  when 
we  shall  need  a  Missionary  Conference  in  India,  China, 
and  other  places,  and  our  Bishops  would  not  visit  these 
places."^  He  then  read  the  following  from  the  Bishops' 
Address : 

Two  points  are  clear  to  us:  first,  thai  episcopal  authority  on 
the  spot  is  very  desirable  for  the  interest  of  the  Mission  in 
Liberia;  secondly,  that  it  cannot  be  regularly  furnished  from  this 
country  without  embarrassing  our  home  work.  How  it  may  best 
be  supplied  is  for  you  to  determine.  Three  modes  have  been 
suggested:  first,  for  the  General  Conference  to  appoint  a  Bishop, 
and  send  him  to  organize  them  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
of  Africa;  second,  to  let  them  organize  themselves,  elect  their 
Bishop,  and  send  him  to  us  for  ordination;  third,  to  appoint  a 
Missionary  Bishop  to  take  charge  of  that  work,  we  retaining 


'The  great  man's  prophetic  inetinct  failed  him  here. 


224  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


jurisdiction  over  it.  As  this  subject  has  received  much  atten- 
tion from  you  heretofore,  we  shall  not  dwell  upon  it';  but  we 
trust  you  will  be  able  to  make  such  provision  as  will  secure  the 
best  interests  of  all  concerned.  But  whatever  disposition  may 
be  made  of  the  case,  we  hope  the  brethren  of  Liberia  will  never 
cease  to  receive  our  Christian  sympathy,  and  that  the  missionary 
dividend  will  be  continued  to  them  as  long  as  they  need  and 
properly  use  it.' 

Durbin  continued :  "The  Bishops  do  not  suggest  which  of 
these  modes  is  the  best,  but  they  would  not  have  pro- 
posed them  if  they  had  supposed  either  of  them  would 
be  an  infraction  of  the  Constitution."  He  closed  his 
speech  by  saying  that  he  had  no  doubt  whatever  in  regard 
to  the  authority.  Hosmer  "undertook  to  answer  the 
constitutional  argument  of  Collins."  Slicer  made  a  vig- 
orous attack  upon  the  proposition,  stating  that  there  had 
already  been  three  attempts  in  as  many  Conferences  to 
carry  this  measure  and  he  was  astonished  that  it  was 
brought  up  again. 

Hiram  Mattison  tried  to  show,  as  Durbin  had  done, 
that  it  could  be  done  without  changing  the  Constitution. 
Osbon  said  "it  was  not  a  constitutional  question  at  all." 
George  R.  Crooks  said  the  Restrictive  Rule  should  be 
construed  strictly,  fairly,  with  reference  to  the  intentions 
of  its  framers,  and  they  certainly  only  had  this  continent 
in  their  minds. 

Cartwright  declared  that  the  "episcopate  is  an  office 
and  not  an  order,  and  an  office  that  can  be  executed  every- 
where." He  held  that  "the  doctrine  that  the  General 
Conference  can  elect  a  Bishop  for  a  particular  locality 
is  the  legitimate  offspring  of  Congregationalism  and  dioc- 
esan episcopacy."  He  said  that  he  would  favor  voting 
for  a  man  for  Africa,  but  not  while  the  Church  there 
was  an  integral  part  of  the  Church  here. 

F.  G.  Hibbard  said  if  the  case  was  of  so  much  impor- 

iGeneral  Conference  Journal,  1856,  vol.  iii,  p.  198. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


225 


tance  as  to  make  necessary  a  change  in  the  Constitution, 
there  was  plenty  of  time  for  deciding.  He  referred  to 
the  Discipli)ie  and  proposed  to  taKe  the  incipient  steps 
by  a  two-thirds  vote  in  favor  of  amending  the  Third 
Restrictive  Rule. 

J.  S.  Porter  moved  that  "the  brethren  in  Africa  elect 
their  Bishop  to  be  independent  of  our  jurisdiction,"  and 
that  "the  ^lissionary  Society  should  be  at  liberty  to  make 
appropriations  to  Liberia  as  heretofore." 

Collins  withdrew  his  amendment;  and  the  whole  sub- 
ject was  referred  back  to  the  committee.  The  next  day 
the  committee  reported  a  recommendation  to  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  to  alter  the  paragraph  by  adding, 
"after  the  word  'superintendency,'  in  the  fourth  line,  'but 
may  appoint  a  Missionary  Bishop  or  Superintendent  for 
any  of  our  foreigii  missions,  limiting  his  episcopal  juris- 
diction to  the  same  respectively.' "  This  went  over  until 
the  next  day.  When  the  debate  was  reopened,  Heman 
Bangs  argued  for  an  independent  Church  in  Africa.  "It 
had  long  been  nursed;  and  if  a  mother  nursed  and  lead 
her  child  too  long,  he  will  not  be  able  to  stand  and  walk 
alone."  He  moved  as  a  substitute  "that  our  members  in 
Africa  be  authorized  to  form  an  independent  Church,  and 
that  should  they  do  so  and  elect  an  elder  to  the  Superin- 
tendency,  our  Bishops  might  ordain  him." 

Durbin  emphasized  the  difficulty  of  this,  and  showed 
that  the  proposed  form  provided  for  cases  which  may 
arise  hereafter,  so  that,  should  missions  in  China,  India, 
or  Germany  be  organized  into  separate  Conferences,  they 
may  have  the  benefit  of  it. 

Bishop  Levi  Scott  announced  as  his  deliberate  judg- 
ment, that  in  the  present  state  of  affairs  in  Africa,  they 
should  have  a  white  Superintendent.  James  Floy  opposed 
the  report,  and  "objected  to  a  white  Bishop.  Colored  men 
must  do  the  work  in  Africa  that  is  done  at  all." 


226  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Nerval  Wilson  thought  it  premature  and  ridiculous, 
to  elect  a  Bishop  for  twenty  elders  and  twelve  hundred 
members. 

When  the  vote  was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  the  report 
was  found  to  be  adopted  by  159  to  27 ;  and  by  vote  the 
Bishops  were  requested  to  present  the  resolution  to  the 
several  Annual  Conferences  for  their  concurrence.  Also 
the  Conference  resolved  that,  should  the  Bishops  ascer- 
tain that  the  Annual  Conferences  had  passed  the  measure 
by  the  requisite  majority,  "then  they  [the  Bishops]  are 
hereby  authorized  to  act  under  its  authority  if  necessary." 

To  complete  the  action,  the  General  Conference  passed 
this  statesmanlike  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  following  principles  shall  regulate  the  ad- 
ministration in  relation  to  Missionary  Bishops  during  the  coming 
four  years,  namely: 

1.  A  Missionary  Bishop  sliall  reside  (with  his  family,  if  he 
have  one)  in  the  particular  mission  field  assigned  him,  and  he 
shall  perform  all  the  duties  of  a  Bishop  in  said  district,  to  which 
his  jurisdiction  shall  be  exclusively  limited. 

2.  Should  he  cease  to  reside  in  said  mission  field,  he  shall  exer- 
cise no  episcopal  powers,  and  shall  become  a  member  of  the 
Annual  Conference  from  which  he  was  elected. 

3.  His  amenability  shall  be  as  in  the  case  of  other  Bishops, 
except  that  the  testimony  taken  before  the  Investigating  Com- 
mittee shall  be  in  writing,  and  upon  this  testimony,  and  upon 
such  further  testimony  as  may  be  taken  prior  to  the  session  of 
the  General  Conference,  on  proper  notification  of  the  parties, 
shall  the  case  be  determined  by  the  General  Conference. 

4.  The  support  of  a  Missionary  Bishop  while  in  his  work,  or 
in  case  of  failure  of  health,  and  the  provision  for  his  family  in 
case  of  death,  shall  be  furnished  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the 
case  of  other  missionaries.^ 

The  requisite  number  of  the  Annual  Conferences  hav- 
ing concurred  with  the  General  Conference,  the  Bishops 
reported  to  the  General  Conference  of  1860  that  "the 
Liberia  Mission  Annual  Conference  having  elected  the 

iGeneral  Conference  Journal,  1856,  vol.  iii,  p.  177. 


THE  THIRD  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 


227 


Rev.  Francis  Burns,  an  elder  in  good  standing  in  said 
Conference,  to  the  office  of  Bishop,  and  our  Board  being 
satisfied  of  these  facts,  Bishops  Janes  and  Baker  [the 
concurrence  of  their  colleagues  having  been  previously 
given]  assisted  by  several  elders,  .  .  .  did  ordain 
Francis  Burns."  Bishop  Burns  wrought  wondrously, 
but  his  health  failed  four  years  after  his  ordination.  He 
hurried  away  to  this  country,  but  died  soon  after  his 
arrival. 

The  General  Conference  of  1864  authorized  the  election 
and  ordination  of  a  successor,  and  the  Liberia  Conference 
chose  the  Rev.  John  Wright  Roberts.  He  was  ordained 
in  New  York  on  June  20,  186G,  and  became  an  acknowl- 
edged leader  in  the  Mission  and  in  important  civil  affairs 
in  Liberia,  but  died  in  January,  1875,  with  the  "entire 
Conference  at  his  side." 

No  successor  was  ordained  until  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1884,  when  William  Taylor  was  elected,  he  being 
at  that  time  a  lay  delegate  from  India.  But  as  he  had 
long  been  a  traveling  preacher  in  orders,  the  Conference 
considered  him  eligible.  The  General  Conference  of 
1888  elected  James  M.  Thoburn  Missionary  Bishop  for 
India. 

That  body  enacted  rules  and  stated  various  principles 
governing  Missionary  Bishops  and  their  relations  to  the 
General  Superintendents.  Subsequently  several  Mission- 
ary Bishops  have  been  elected.  Such  regulations  are  not 
constitutional  but  legislative,  and  as  they  were  made  by 
the  General  Conference,  so  they  may  be  changed. 

The  general  rights  of  the  Missionary  Bishops  are  cov- 
ered by  the  addition  to  the  Third  Restrictive  Rule,  which 
became  operative  after  the  action  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1856,  and  the  concurrence  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, and  which  was  first  introduced  into  the  Dis- 
cipline of  1860. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 


Fourth,  Fifth,  and  Sixth  Restrictive  Rules,  and  the 
Proviso  for  Change  of  Restrictive  Rules 

FOURTH  restrictive  RULE 

"The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke  nor  change 
the  General  Rules  of  the  United  Societies," 

These  rules  were  published  by  John  Wesley,  and  signed 
by  John  and  Charles  Wesley  under  date  of  May  1,  1743, 
and  were  adopted  without  alteration  by  the  first  Method- 
ist societies  in  America.  They  were  first  published  in  the 
Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1789; 
and  by  that  time,  certain  minor  changes  had  been  made, 
and  Wesley's  historical  introduction  omitted.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  discuss  these,  except  where  they  relate  to 
fundamental  principles. 

As  the  rules  came  from  the  hands  of  the  Wesleys,  the 
command  on  "Drinking"  reads  thus:  "Drunkenness,  buy- 
ing or  selling  spirituous  liquors,  or  drinking  them,  except 
in  cases  of  extreme  necessity."  As  it  appears  in  1789  the 
phrase,  "unless  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity"  is  omitted; 
but  in  the  DiscijMne  of  1790  it  was  in  substance  replaced, 
as  follows :  "Drunkenness,  or  drinking  spirituous  liquors, 
unless  in  cases  of  necessity."  The  next  year  saw  the  intro- 
duction of  the  preposition  "in"  between  "unless"  and 
"cases."  In  1848  Wesley's  rule  was  restored  exactly  as 
it  was  one  hundred  and  five  years  before. 

In  Wesley's  original  Rules,  slavery  was  not  mentioned ; 
but  in  the  Discipline  of  1789  the  following  was  inserted: 
"Buying  or  selling  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men,  women, 
or  children,  with  an  intention  to  enslave  them."  In  1792 
"souls  of"  was  omitted,  and  in  1808  it  was  changed  to  the 
228 


PROVISO  FOR  CHANGE  OF  RESTRICTIVE  RULES  229 


"buying  and  selling  of  men,  women,  and  children  with  an 
intention  to  enslave  them." 

In  1864,  and  the  Annual  Conferences  supervening,  the 
paragraph  on  slavery  in  the  General  Rules  was  changed 
to  "Slaveholding,  buying  or  selling  slaves."^ 

Wesley's  historical  introduction  was  reinserted  in  1792, 
simply  substituting  the  third  person  for  the  first  and 
inserting  Wesley's  name. 

FIFTH  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 

They  shall  not  do  away  the  privilege  of  our  ministers  or 
preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee  and  of  an  appeal;  neither 
shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  members  of  trial  before 
the  society  or  by  a  committee  of  the  people. 

This  rule  was  subjected  to  only  one  alteration  until 
1884,  when  the  phrase  "The  General  Conference"  was 
substituted  for  the  word  "They";  and  since  the  revision 
of  the  Constitution  as  a  whole,  it  reads: 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  deprive  our  ministers  of  the 
right  of  trial  by  the  Annual  Conference,  or  by  a  select  number 
thereof,  nor  of  an  appeal;  nor  shall  it  deprive  our  members  of 
the  right  of  trial  by  a  committee  of  members  of  our  Church, 
nor  of  an  appeal. 

The  General  Conference,  however,  has  the  right  to 
modify  methods  of  procedure  according  to  its  wisdom  and 
will,  provided  these  essentials  are  undisturbed  or  are 
changed  in  a  constitutional  way. 

SIXTH  RESTRICTIVE  RULE 

This  restriction,  when  first  adopted  was: 

They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern, 
nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the 
benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and 
worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 


'This  subject  is  further  treated. 


230  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

With  the  exception  of  changing  "They"  to  "The  Gen- 
eral Conference,"  and  "or"  to  "nor,"  this  restriction 
remained  as  it  was  originally  formed  until  the  revision 
of  the  Constitution,  by  which  it  was  made  to  read : 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of 
the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose 
other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  and 
superannuated  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 

For  many  years  the  Bishops  and  needy  traveling  preach- 
ers were  supported  from  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern ; 
and  this  money  was  also  appropriated  to  paying  the 
expenses  of  the  General  Conference.  But  after  much 
discussion,  the  Bishops  are  now  supported  by  a  special 
fund,  raised  for  the  purpose;  and  the  expenses  of  the 
General  Conference  are  provided  for  in  a  similar  manner. 
It  is  recognized  without  dissent  that  the  traveling  preach- 
ers, and  the  supernumerary  and  superannuated  preachers, 
their  wives,  widows,  and  children  have  a  claim  upon  the 
produce  of  the  Book  Concern.  Certain  legislation,  how- 
ever, which  is  recognized  as  within  the  authority  of  the 
General  Conference,  prevents  the  misapplication  of  the 
funds. 

The  Chartered  Fund,  at  its  birth,  was  expected  to 
become  of  great  value;  but  its  name  was  against  it. 
Enthusiasm  was  not  maintained,  and  only  for  a  short 
time  did  it  receive  funds.^ 

THE  PROVISO 

The  method  provided  by  the  Constitution  for  repealing, 
altering,  or  adding  to  the  Restrictive  Rules  was  originally : 

Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation  of 
all  the  Annual  Conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of  the 
General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the 
above  restrictions. 


'At  present  it  disburses  to  each  Conference  $25  annually. 


PROVISO  FOR  CHANGE  OF  RESTRICTIVE  RULES  231 


There  were  serious  difficulties  in  such  a  plan.  Under 
that  Rule,  it  was  possible  for  one  Conference — and  that 
the  smallest — to  countervail  the  will  of  the  whole  Church 
and  prevent  all  change.  Further,  as  the  proposition  to 
change  the  Constitution  must  be  first  voted  upon  in  the 
Annual  Conferences,  however  great  an  emergency  might 
arise,  it  could  not,  in  some  cases,  be  met  for  four  years, 
unless  a  special  General  Confei'ence  were  called. 

An  illustration  of  the  first  difficulty  mentioned,  is 
given  by  Bangs,  who  says : 

A  recommendation  had  been  sent  the  rounds  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  requesting  them  to  empower  the  General  Conference 
of  1828  to  diminish  the  number  of  delegates.  This  recommenda- 
tion passed  all  the  Annual  Conferences  except  the  Philadelphia; 
and  as  it  required  all  the  Conferences  to  concur  before  the  altera- 
tion could  be  made  by  the  General  Conference,  the  measure  was 
defeated  by  the  nonconcurrence  of  this  single  Annual  Confer- 
ence. It  was  thus  that  we  all  began  to  feel  the  pressure  of  the 
yoke  which  had  been  imposed  upon  us  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1808,  by  which  we  were  compelled  to  submit  to  the  burden 
until  permitted  to  relieve  ourselves  by  the  concurrence  of  all 
the  Conferences  in  the  Union.  This  unwise  provision  put  it  com- 
pletely in  the  power  of  a  very  small  minority  to  rule  the  whole 
body  on  any  question  arising  out  of  the  Restrictive  Rules.  From 
such  a  grievous  yoke,  "which  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  were 
able  to  bear,"  the  General  Conference  of  1828  made  an  effort  to 
break  loose.* 

Wilbur  Fisk  proposed  a  measure  of  relief,  which,  as 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference,  was  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  respectfully  suggest 
to  the  several  Annual  Conferences  the  propriety  of  recommending 
to  the  next  General  Conference  so  to  alter  and  amend  the  Rules 
of  our  Discipline,  by  which  the  General  Conference  is  restricted 
in  its  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church,  com- 
monly called  the  Restrictive  Rules,  as  to  make  the  proviso  at  the 
close  of  the  said  Restrictive  Rules,  No.  6,  read  thus: 

"Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  concurrent  recommen- 


^History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  iv,  p.  103. 


232  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


dation  of  three  fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  Annual 
Conferences  who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on  such  recommenda- 
tion, then  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of  the  General  Conference  suc- 
ceding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  such  regulations  excepting  the 
first  Article. 

"And,  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall 
have  first  been  recommended  by  two  thirds  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, so  soon  as  three  fourths  of  the  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  shall  have  concurred,  as  aforesaid,  with  such  recom- 
mendation, such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  take  effect."^ 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1832  the  Committee  on 
Itinerancy  reported  the  result  of  its  submission  to  the 
several  Annual  Conferences,  stating,  that  the  "resolu- 
tions have  passed  all  the  Annual  Conferences  in  full 
and  due  form,  with  the  exception  of  the  Illinois,  where 
we  find  some  want  in  the  formality,  not  sufficient,  how- 
ever, in  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  to  alter  or  set 
aside  the  principle."^ 

The  subject  was  postponed  and  was  taken  up  for 
final  discussion  and  vote  on  the  10th  of  May,  when  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Itinerancy  was  again  read, 
and  also  the  following  communication  in  writing  from  the 
delegates  of  the  Illinois  Conference: 

We,  the  delegates  from  the  Illinois  Annual  Conference,  do 
hereby  certify  that  we  do  all  cordially  concur  in  the  above  as- 
surance.' 

The  General  Conference  evidently  considered  this  suf- 
ficient, for  the  resolution  concerning  the  change  in  the 
Proviso  was  unanimously  adopted,  and  though  the  pro- 
ceedings were  not  quite  regular,  there  is  no  record  of 
any  objection  to  it  at  that  time  or  siuce.^ 

'General  Conference  Journal.  1828,  vol.  i,  pp.  353,  354. 
2Ibi(l.,  Journal,  1832,  vol.  i,  pp.  377,378. 
'Ibid.,  Journal,  1832,  vol.  i,  p.  383. 

■•In  order  to  learn  just  what  the  informality  in  the  action  of  the  Illinois  Con- 
ferpMCe  was.  the  Rev.  Christian  Galeencr,  sccirtary  of  that  Conference,  at  the 
request  of  Dr.  Neely,  carefully  examined  the  Journal,  bat  could  find  no  mention 
(-f  the  subject,  and  so  wrote  him,  January  9,  1S91. 


PROVISO  FOR  CHANGE  OF  RESTRICTIVE  RULES  233 


At  the  same  time  that  the  alteration  in  the  Proviso  for 
changing  the  method  of  altering  any  of  the  restrictions  was 
effected,  an  addition,  equivalent  to  another  Restrictive 
Rule,  was  made.  There  were  inserted  into  the  Proviso, 
the  words  "Excepting  the  first  Article."  This  is  a  limit 
upon  the  Proviso,  which  would  appear  to  prevent,  by 
any  means  whatever,  any  change  in  om*  Articles  of  Reli- 
gion and  the  establishing  of  any  Standards  or  rules  of 
doctrine  '"contrary  to  our  present  existing  Standards." 
But  this  is  not  the  case. 

Before  this  alteration  was  made  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences and  the  next  succeeding  General  Conference  could 
destroy,  modify,  or  enlarge  every  one  of  the  Restrictive 
Rules.  The  fact  that  it  was  Constitutional  to  insert,  in 
the  Proviso  for  amendment,  the  words  "excepting  the 
first  Article"  demonstrates  that,  had  they  been  placed 
there  at  the  first,  it  would  have  been  constitutional  to 
remove  them.  Therefore,  by  the  General  Conference  and 
the  constitutional  votes  of  the  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences,  and.  at  the  present  time,  the  votes  of  the 
Lay  Electoral  Conferences,  the  words  could  be  removed, 
and  that  having  been  done,  the  First  Restrictive  Rule 
could  then  be  altered  by  the  same  method  as  any  of  the 
others. 

Some  who  feared  that,  under  this  Rule,  our  Standards 
of  doctrine  could  be  easily  mutilated,  have  tried  to  prove 
that  the  First  Restrictive  Rule  could  be  changed  only 
under  the  old  law;  that  is,  if  all  the  Annual  Conferences 
by  a  majority  vote  should  agree  to  change  the  said  Rule, 
and  the  ensuing  General  Conference  should  ratify  the 
same  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds.  That  method  was  annihi- 
lated and  another  put  in  its  place,  and  the  idea  that  it 
could  be  called  from  its  grave  in  which  it  had  lain  for 
half  a  century  is  without  support. 

The  Rule  as  it  was  enacted  in  1808  bore  the  same  rela- 


234  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

tion  to  the  Proviso  for  changing  the  Restrictive  Rules  as 
did  the  Rule  protecting  the  episcopacy  or  any  other 
Restrictive  Rule.  Now,  the  Articles  of  Religion  and  "our 
present  existing  and  established  Standards"  are  more 
safely  protected  than  any  other  part  of  the  Constitution. 


CANADIAN  METHODISM'S  SEPARATION 
FROM  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
CHURCH  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 


CHAPTER  XXX 


Separation  of  Canadian  Methodism  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church 

The  divers  and  diverse  relations  of  early  Canadian 
Methodism  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  became 
Intricate  to  such  a  degree  as  to  involve  constitutional 
questions  of  vital  interest  and  great  difficulty.  A  broad 
sketch  is  needed  to  render  clear  the  issues  and  explain 
the  final  action  taken. 

In  the  province  of  Canada  a  few  local  preachers  repre- 
sented Methodism  before  1789.  William  Losee  appears 
in  the  Minutes  of  that  year,  stationed,  uiidei-  Freeborn 
Garrettson,  presiding  elder,  with  David  Kendall  on  the 
Lake  Champlain  Circuit.  Losee  had  kindred  in  Upper 
Canada,  and  went  among  them  preaching  the  gospel. 
Stevens  says  the  tradition  is  that  Losee  received  permis- 
sion from  Garrettson  in  the  winter  of  1789-90  to  "range 
at  large,"  seeking  a  more  eligible  field.  This  is  highly 
probable,  as  the  circuit  named  ''Lake  Champlain"  had 
not  been  successful,  and  in  1790  was  abandoned.  It  is 
certain  that  Losee  formed  classes,  and  returned  to  the 
Conference  with  petitions  for  his  reappointment,  and  the 
next  year  was  regularly  stationed  in  Canada.  He  is 
recognized  in  the  Minutes  of  1790  as  remaining  "on  trial," 
but  there  is  no  station  in  connection  with  his  name  in  the 
Minutes  of  that  year.  In  1791  he  was  admitted  into  full 
connection  and  appointed  to  Kingston,  Canada. 

steady  progress 

The  spirit  of  Methodism  and  its  preachers  was  re- 
sponded to  by  many ;  and  by  1799  there  was,  in  Canada, 

237 


238  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


a  presiding  elder's  district  with  four  preachers.  Between 
that  period  and  1810  the  preachers  designated  for  Canada 
were  frequently  transferred  from  one  Annual  Conference 
to  another.  Those  in  Lower  Canada  were  always  related 
to  a  different  Conference  from  those  in  Upper  Canada; 
but  all  Methodists  were  always  connected  with  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  until  1812,  when  war  broke  out 
between  the  United  States  and  England. 

Two  years  before  that  event  the  Genesee  Annual  Con- 
ference had  been  organized,  and  the  preachers  in  Canada 
were  chiefly  comprehended  within  its  boundaries ;  and  by 
the  opening  of  the  Conference  year  1812-13,  all  except 
those  on  the  border  circuits  were  connected  with  that 
Conference.  Early  in  the  war  all  the  preachers  for 
Lower  Canada  except  two,  being  American  citizens,  re- 
turned to  the  United  States.  Thomas  Burch,  a  British- 
born  subject,  took  the  place  of  Nathan  Bangs  in  Montreal. 
The  presiding  elder  of  the  Upper  Canada  District  at  that 
time  had  charge  of  seven  circuits  and  twelve  preachers. 
Several  of  these  were  American  citizens,  but  only  one 
went  back  to  the  United  States  on  account  of  the  war. 

ENTANGLEMENTS  ARISE 

Quebec  Methodists,  having  been  destitute  of  the  ordi- 
nances, applied  to  the  chairman  of  the  Nova  Scotia 
District,  which  was  not  ecclesiastically  connected  with 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  a  supply,  and, 
through  his  representations,  a  minister  was  sent  from  the 
British  Conference,  who  arrived  in  1814.  The  larger  part 
of  the  society  in  Montreal  expressed  a  similar  wish, 
which  was  responded  to;  but  the  minority,  desiring  a 
preacher  from  the  United  States,  received  one,  and  for 
some  time  worshiped  in  a  public  hall. 

On  one  plea  or  another,  British  Wesleyan  preachers  had 
established  themselves  in  other  parts  of  Lower  Canada, 


SEPARATION  OF  CANADIAN  METHODISM  239 

and  as  far  west  in  Upper  Canada  as  Niagara  and  Saint 
Catherines,  and  various  important  stations  between. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  British  Conference  sent 
to  the  General  Conference  of  1816  a  letter  to  the  effect 
that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should  vacate  divers 
stations  and  surrender  them  to  the  British  missionaries. 

The  reasons  for  this  proposition  were:  the  relative 
situation  of  the  inhabitants  of  Montreal  and  Canada  to 
England,  the  fact  that  there  was  a  misunderstanding 
between  British  missionaries  and  the  American  presid- 
ing elder  for  Lower  Canada,  and  because  a  considerable 
part  of  the  money  for  erecting  the  chapel  and  house 
in  Montreal  had  been  raised  in  England.  The  General 
Conference,  however,  declared  that  it  "appears,  from 
written  and  verbal  commimications,  that  it  is  the  desire 
of  the  great  majority  of  the  people  in  Upper  and  Lower 
Canada  to  be  supplied,  as  heretofore,  with  preachers  from 
the  United  States."  And  "these  things  being  duly  con- 
sidered, together  with  the  contiguity  of  those  provinces  to 
the  western  and  northern  parts  of  the  United  States," 
the  following  resolutions  were  submitted : 

Resolved,  1.  That  we  cannot,  consistently  with  our  duty  to 
the  societies  of  our  charge  in  the  Canadas,  give  up  any  part  of 
them,  or  any  of  our  chapels  in  those  provinces,  to  the  superin- 
tendence of  the  British  connection. 

Resolved,  2.  That  a  respectful  letter  be  addressed  to  the  Lon- 
don Methodist  Missionary  Society,  explaining  the  reasons  for 
the  above  resolution.^ 

This  letter  requested  "that  the  preachers  of  each  con- 
nection might  be  permitted  to  .occupy  in  peace  their 
respective  fields  of  labor." 

DIFFICULTIES  GROW  MORE  PERSISTENT 

Grave  difficulties  then  arose  between  the  Wesleyan 
Church  of  England  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

'General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  pp.  151,  152. 


240  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


of  the  United  States — difficulties  which  were  not  settled 
to  any  degree  until  the  General  Conference  of  1820,  and 
then  only  apparently.  At  this  General  Conference 
numerous  memorials  and  petitions  from  the  several  cir- 
cuits in  Upper  Canada  were  presented.  They  protested 
against  the  interference  of  the  British  missionaries,  and 
prayed  that  "  they  might  still  be  supplied  with  the  min- 
istry and  ordinances  of  religion  by  the  American  Con- 
ference." 

After  an  unusually  careful  consideration  of  the  subject, 
several  resolutions  were  adopted : 

Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Conferences  in  Gen- 
eral Conference  assembled,  1.  That  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Bishops 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  continue  their  episcopal 
charge  over  our  societies  in  the  Canadas,  except  Quebec. 

Resolved,  etc.,  2.  That  the  following  address  be  sent  to 
brethren  in  Canada: 

"Deae  Beethben:  .  .  .  We  sincerely  deprecate  those  evils  of 
which  you  complain,  and  which  have  grown  out  of  the  conduct  of 
the  missionaries  sent  by  the  British  Conference  to  labor  in 
Canada.  Confiding,  however,  in  the  integrity  of  that  Conference, 
and  believing  they  have  been  misled  by  partial  and  erroneous 
statements  sent  out  by  interested  persons  in  Canada,  we  still 
hope  ithat  the  existing  embarrassment  will  be  removed,  and 
that  an  amicable  adjustment  of  this  unhappy  affair  may  be 
brought  about.  ..." 

The  fourth  resolution  was: 

That  this  Conference  address  the  British  Conference  on  the 
subject  of  a  mutual  exchange  of  delegates,  as  representatives  of 
the  one  Conference  to  the  other. 

The  sixth  resolution  provided: 

That  the  episcopacy,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  General  Conference,  if  they  judge  it  expedient  prior  to  the 
sitting  of  the  next  General  Conference,  shall  have  authority  to 
establish  an  Annual  Conference  In  Canada.*^ 

Later  the  first  resolution  was  amended  by  adding: 

'General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  pp.  213-215. 


SEPARATION  OF  CANADIAN  METHODISM  241 


Provided,  nevertheless,  that  the  episcopacy  shall  have  au- 
thority to  negotiate  with  the  British  Conference  respecting  Lower 
Canada  in  the  way  and  manner  they  shall  see  fit.' 

Affairs  in  Canada,  in  1824,  were  not  drifting  nor  being 
brought  to  any  conclusion  satisfactory  to  the  Canadian 
brethren;  and  the  Methodists  in  Upper  Canada  were 
desirous  of  having  an  independent  Church  reorganization 
in  that  province.  The  result  of  the  different  deliberations 
upon  this  subject  was  contained  in  the  resolutions : 

That  there  shall  be  a  Canada  Conference  under  our  superin- 
tendence, bounded  by  the  boundary  lines  of  Upper  Canada. 

And 

That  a  respectful  representation  be  made  to  the  British  Con- 
ference of  those  points  in  the  late  agreement  between  the  two 
connections  which  have  not,  on  the  part  of  their  missionaries, 
been  fulfilled.^ 

In  the  Conference  of  1828  a  petition  from  the  Canadian 
Annual  Conference  was  presented  by  William  Ryerson, 
"praying  that  it  may  be  separated  from  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States."  Upon  this  Bangs  observes: 

This  desire,  however,  did  not  arise  out  of  any  dissatisfaction 
with  the  conduct  of  the  brethren  in  the  United  States  toward 
them,  but  chiefly  from  the  opposition  evinced  by  statesmen  In 
Upper  Canada  to  their  being  subject  to  the  control  of  a  foreign 
ecclesiastical  head,  over  which  the  civil  authorities  of  Canada 
could  exercise  no  jurisdiction;  and  as  most  of  the  preachers  in 
Canada  were  formerly  from  the  United  States,  and  all  of  them 
subject  to  an  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  another  nation,  it 
was  contended  by  the  Canadian  authorities  that  they  had  no 
sufficient  guarantee  for  their  allegiance  to  the  crown  of  Great 
Britain,  and  to  the  civil  regulations  of  Canada;  and  hence  the 
Methodist  ministers  in  Canada  had  suffered  civil  disabilities,  and 
had  not  been  allowed  to  celebrate  the  rites  of  matrimony,  not 
even  for  their  own  members.' 

'General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  237. 
2Ibid..  vol.  i,  p.  302. 

'History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  iii,  p.  388. 


242  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


LIGHT  IN  THE  DARKNESS 

The  controlling  resolution  passed  by  the  Conference  of 
1828  was: 

If  the  Annual  Conference  in  Upper  Canada  at  its  ensuing 
session,  or  any  succeeding  session  previously  to  the  next  General 
Conference,  shall  definitely  determine  on  this  course,  and  elect  a 
General  Superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
that  province,  this  General  Conference  do  hereby  authorize  any 
one  or  more  of  the  General  Superintendents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  with  the  assistance  of  any 
two  or  more  elders,  to  ordain  such  General  Superintendent  for 
the  said  Church  in  Upper  Canada,  provided  always,  that  nothing 
herein  contained  be  contrary  to  or  inconsistent  with  the  laws 
existing  in  the  said  province;  and  provided  that  no  such  General 
Superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Upper 
Canada,  or  any  of  his  successors  in  office,  shall  at  any  time  exer- 
cise any  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  whatever  in  any  part  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  the  territories  thereof;  and  provided  also, 
that  this  article  shall  be  expressly  ratified  and  agreed  to  by  the 
said  Canada  Annual  Conference,  before  any  such  ordination  shall 
take  place.' 

Bangs  enters  into  an  argument  to  prove  that  this  reso- 
lution was  constifvtional.  He  acknowledges  that  when 
the  subject  first  came  up  for  consideration,  and  the  report 
was  approved  by  the  vote  of  the  General  Conference,  it 
had 

no  constitutional  right  to  set  off  the  brethren  in  Upper  Canada  as 
an  independent  body,  because  the  terms  of  the  compact  by  which 
we  existed  as  a  General  Conference  made  it  obligatory  on  us, 
as  a  delegated  body,  to  preserve  the  union  entire,  and  not  to 
break  up  the  Church  into  separate  fragments.  Hence  to  grant 
the  prayer  of  the  memorialists,  by  a  solemn  act  of  legislation, 
would  be  giving  sanction  to  a  principle,  and  setting  a  precedent 
for  future  General  Conferences,  of  a  dangerous  character — of 
such  a  character  as  might  tend  ultimately  to  the  dissolution  of 
the  ecclesiastical  body,  which  would  be,  in  fact  and  form,  con- 
travening the  very  object  for  which  we  were  constituted  a  dele- 
gated Conference,  this  object  being  the  preservation,  and  not  a 


'General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  406. 


SEPARATION  OF  CANADIAN  METHODISM  243 


destruction  or  dissolution  of  the  union.  These  arguments  ap- 
peared so  forcible  to  the  first  committee,  and  to  the  Conference, 
that  the  idea  of  granting  them  a  separate  organization  on  the 
principle  of  abstract  and  independent  legislation  was  abandoned 
as  altogether  indefensible,  being  contrary  to  the  constitutional 
compact.' 

Bangs  also  conceded  that  since  the  "Canadian  brethren 
so  earnestly  requested,"  and  pleaded  "with  so  much  zeal, 
and  even  with  most  pathetic  appeals  to  our  sympathies" 
for  some  method  of  granting  their  wish,  the  Conference 
"looked  about  for  a  way  to  satisfy  them." 

Emory  suggested  that,  as  the  preachers  who  went  to 
Canada  in  the  first  instance  as  missionaries,  and  after- 
ward, when  additional  helj)  was  needed, 

Bishop  Asbury  and  his  successors  asked  for  volunteers,  not 
claiming  the  right  to  send  them,  in  the  same  authoritative  man- 
ner in  which  they  were  sent  to  the  different  parts  of  the  United 
States  and  Territories,  .  .  .  they  had  a  perfect  right  to  request 
us  to  withdraw  our  services,  and  we  the  same  right  to  withhold 
them. 

The  Conference  then  concluded,  that 

It  seemed  perfectly  compatible  with  our  powers  as  a  delegated 
Conference  and  their  privileges  as  a  part  of  the  same  body,  thus 
connected  by  a  voluntary  and  conditional  compact,  either  ex- 
pressed or  implied,  to  dissolve  the  connection  subsisting  between 
us,  without  any  dereliction  of  duty  or  forfeiture  of  privilege  on 
either  part.  It  was  on  this  principle  alone  that  the  above  agree- 
ment was  iased.^ 

A  FINAL  AND  SATISFACTORY  ADJUSTMENT 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1828  the  Canadian  Meth- 
odists made  a  claim  on  a  portion  of  the  Book  Concern. 
The  members  of  the  Conference,  with  few  exceptions, 
agreed  that  the  claim  was  just.  But  the  prevailing 
opinion  was  that  there  were  constitutional  difficulties  in 
the  way;  and  the  matter  was  postponed  to  the  General 

^History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  iii,  p.  390. 
'Bangs,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  iii,  p.  391. 


244  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Conference  of  1832.  That  body,  after  much,  and  peculiarly 
able,  discussion,  resolved  that  "an  apportionment  of  the 
property  of  the  Concern  ought  to  be  made  to  them.  But 
as  constitutional  difficulties  are  believed  to  be  in  the  way 
of  such  appropriation  by  this  Conference,  because  they 
have  not  been  instructed  on  the  subject  by  their  constitu- 
ents, according  to  the  Proviso  at  the  end  of  the  restrictive 
regulations,"  they  therefore  passed  a  resolution  by  which 
"if  three  fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  Annual 
Conferences,  who  shall  be  present  and  vote  shall  concur," 
the  apportionment  might  be  made.  The  proposal  sent 
down  to  be  voted  upon  was: 

1.  The  dividend  shall  be  made  according  to  the  proportion 
that  the  number  of  traveling  preachers  in  the  Canada  Confer- 
ence bears  to  the  number  of  traveling  preachers  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  including  in  both  esti- 
mates the  superannuated  preachers  and  those  on  trial. 

2.  The  amount  of  property  to  be  divided  shall  be  reckoned 
according  to  the  first  and  largest  estimate  of  stock  in  the  late 
exhibit  of  the  Book  Agents,  namely,  $448,745. 70iA,  deducting  there- 
from debts  due  from  the  Concern,  annuities,  etc.,  .  .  .  and  leaving 
an  amount  to  be  divided  of  about  $413,566,931/2. 

3.  That  the  Canada  Conference  shall  receive  a  full  propor- 
tion of  the  unsalable  and  salable  stock,  and  of  the  bad  as  well 
as  good  debts,  considering  the  stock  and  debts  in  Canada  that 
belong  to  the  Book  Concern  as  so  much  of  the  dividend  already 
paid,  but  to  be  estimated  as  forming  a  part  of  the  General  Book 
Concern,  according  to  the  manner  of  estimating  the  whole 
amount* 

The  Annual  Conferences  debated  this  plan,  for  and 
against,  with  great  zeal;  and  in  the  General  Conference 
of  1836  the  Committee  on  Canada  Affairs  reported  on  the 
submission  as  follows: 

In  favor  of  concurring  with  the  General  Conference  of  1832, 
five  hundred  and  ninety-nine ;  against  concurring,  seven  hundred 
and  fifty-eight.  Whole  number  of  votes  taken,  one  thousand 
three  hundred  and  fifty-seven.    This  statement  shows  that  in- 


>GeDeral  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i.  pp.  404,  405. 


SEPARATION  OF  CANADIAN  METHODISM  245 


Stead  of  three  fourths  of  the  votes  being  in  favor  of  obviating 
the  constitutional  restriction,  as  the  Discipline  in  such  cases 
requires,  a  large  majority  have  decided  against  it.  And  this  your 
committee  regard  as  final  and  conclusive  against  these  claims. ^ 

In  the  meantime  the  Canada  Conference  had  appointed 
its  president,  the  Rev.  William  Lord,  and  the  Rev.  Wil- 
liam Case  to  negotiate  its  claims  in  the  Book  Concern, 
giving  them  ''full  powers  to  bring  an  amicable  termina- 
tion." Therefore  the  General  Conference  instructed  the 
Book  Agents  to  sell  the  Catalogue  books  to  the  Canadian 
Conference  at  forty  per  cent  discount  from  the  retail 
price,  Sunday  school  publications  at  eighteen  per  cent, 
and  that  these  and  some  other  subordinate  privileges 
should  continue  until  1852. 

Bangs,  the  veteran  missionary  to  Canada,  had  the 
exquisite  pleasure  of  writing  in  his  History: 

Thus  was  this  long-pending  question  brought  to  an  amicable 
termination  on  such  terms  as  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  the 
harmony  and  brotherly  affection  heretofore  subsisting  between 
the  connections.- 


'General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  461. 

'History  oj  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  iv,  p.  239. 


BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  1844^5 


CHAPTER  XXXI 

The  Bisection  of  the  Church 

Slavery  from  the  very  first  was  a  troublesome  and 
embroiling  element  in  Methodism.  It  appears  in  the  Rules 
and  Regulations  of  1780,  in  a  sharp  "disapprobation"  of 
all  who  keep  slaves ;  in  1783,  in  a  threat  to  suspend  local 
preachers  who  do  so.  In  1784  it  was  decreed,  that  all, 
who  having  been  warned  and  yet  "buy  slaves  to  keep  as 
slaves,"  shall  be  expelled,  and  that  traveling  preachers 
"who  now  have  slaves  and  will  not  free  them  if  the  law 
allows,  shall  be  no  more  employed."  Later  in  1784, 
there  was  added  to  the  "Rules  of  our  society"  a  compli- 
cated scheme  of  emancipation.  Recognizing  that  "these 
rules  fonn  a  new  term  of  communion,  anyone  who  will 
not  obey  them  may  peaceably  withdraw;  but  he  shall 
never  partake  of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  with  the  Method- 
ists," till  he  complies  with  the  rule.  Those  who  "buy 
or  sell  slaves,  or  give  them  away"  are  immediately  to  be 
expelled ;  "unless  they  buy  them  on  purpose  to  free  them." 

But  in  1785  the  Annual  Conferences  found  these 
last  Rules  would  do  harm,  and  they  were  suspended. 
This  notice  had  the  effect  of  an  absolute  repeal,  and  in 
the  second  edition  of  the  Discipline,  published  in  London 
in  1786,  they  entirely  disappeared. 

FIRST  GENERAL  RULE  AGAINST  SLAVERY 

The  Discipline  of  1789  contains  for  the  first  time  a 
"general  rule"  forbidding  "The  buying  or  selling  the  bodies 
and  souls  of  men,  women,  or  children  with  an  intention 
to  enslave  them." 

The  General  Rules  as  framed  by  Wesley  contained 
249 


250  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

nothing  whatever  with  regard  to  slavery,  and  no  evidence 
exists  that  the  above  "General  Rule"  was  authorized  by 
the  Annual  Conferences. 

The  General  Conference  of  1796  declared  that  it  was 
"more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of  the  African 
slavery  which  exists  in  these  United  States";  it  com- 
manded the  yearly  Conferences,  Quarterly  Conferences, 
and  also  presiding  elders  and  pastors,  "to  be  exceedingly 
cautious  what  persons  they  admit  to  official  stations 
in  our  Church ;  .  .  .  and  to  require  security  of  those 
who  hold  slaves  for  the  emancipation  of  them."  And 
also:  "Every  member  of  the  society  who  sold  a  slave 
should,  after  full  proof,  be  excluded  the  society." 

Paragraphs  were  inserted  in  1800  to  the  elfect  that  if 
any  of  the  traveling  preachers  "becomes  an  owner  of  a 
slave  or  slaves  by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  minis- 
terial character  in  the  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if  it  be 
practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  the  said  slaves." 
The  Annual  Conferences  were  directed  to  draw  up  ad- 
dresses for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  the  slaves  in  those 
States  in  which  no  general  laws  had  been  passed  for  that 
purpose. 

EXTRAORDINARY  CHANGES 

But  as  before,  these  stern  decrees  reacted,  and  in  1804 
astonishing  modifications  were  made.  It  was  provided 
that  the  members  of  the  societies  in  the  States  of  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Tennessee  should 
"be  exempted  from  the  operation  of  the  above  rules." 

In  1808  the  General  Conference  elided  all  of  the  section 
on  slavery  except  the  first  two  paragraphs,  and  passed 
a  resolution  authorizing  "each  Annual  Conference  to  form 
their  own  regulations  relative  to  buying  and  selling  of 
slaves."  There  appears  to  have  been  no  debate  on  the 
subject  and  by  this  legislation  everything  relating  to 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


251 


slaveholding  among  private  members  was  stricken  out. 
Bisliop  Asbury  moved  the  extraordinary  resolution  "that 
there  be  one  thousand  forms  of  Discipline  prepared  for 
the  use  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference  in  which  the 
section  and  rule  on  slavery  he  left  out."  This  motion 
apparently  prevailed  unanimously.  A  change  was  made 
in  1812  so  that  the  paragraph  should  read : 

Whereas,  the  laws  of  some  of  the  States  do  not  admit  of  eman- 
cipating of  slaves,  without  a  special  act  of  the  Legislature,  the 
General  Conference  authorizes  each  Annual  Conference  to  form 
their  own  regulations  relative  to  buying  and  selling  slaves. 

In  181G,  the  following  was  enacted: 

No  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our 
Church  hereafter,  where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives 
will  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to 
enjoy  freedom. 

In  1820  the  provision  that  "Annual  Conferences  can 
form  their  own  regulations  about  buying  slaves"  was 
stricken  out. 

ORGANIZED   OPPOSITION   TO  SLAVERY 

In  the  General  Conferences  of  1828  and  1832  there  was 
no  slavery  legislation.  But  various  ominous  events  had 
been  occurring. 

The  New  England  Antislavery  Society  was  organized 
in  1832,  the  first  Methodist  Abolition  Society  in  1833,  and 
the  American  Antislavery  Society  the  same  yeai*.  At 
a  convention  in  Philadelphia  sixty-three  abolitionists, 
representing  eleven  of  the  States,  were  present;  among 
them  William  Lloyd  Garrison  and  John  G.  Whittier, 
They  lectured  and  distributed  pamphlets,  tracts,  and 
leaflets,  and  by  1835  they  had  collected  |35,000  to  expend 
for  issuing  a  million  publications  of  various  sorts,  for 
the  employment  of  fourteen  lecturers,  and  for  organizing 
five  hundred  auxiliary  societies.    The  Ohio  Annual  Con- 


252  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ference  in  1835  passed  a  resolution  against  abolition  and 
antislavery  societies.  The  Baltimore  Conference  in  the 
next  year  declared  itself  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of 
slavery,  but  was  equally  opposed  "in  every  part  and  par- 
ticular to  the  proceedings  of  the  abolitionists." 

The  New  England  and  New  Hampshire  Conferences 
organized  societies  in  1835  for  the  promotion  of  the 
immediate  and  unconditional  abolition  of  slavery.  Zion's 
Herald  was  opened  to  articles  in  favor  of  abolition,  and 
published  an  appeal  to  the  members  of  the  New  England 
and  New  Hampshire  Conferences  signed  by  Leroy  Sunder- 
land and  several  other  ministers.  This  was  answered 
in  the  same  pai)er  by  a  counter  appeal  written  by  D.  D. 
Whedon,  signed  by  Wilbur  Fisk,  Abel  Stevens,  Bishop 
Hedding,  "Father"  Taylor,  and  five  others. 

HEATED  ACTION  IN  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1836 

Of  the  sixteen  delegates  elected  by  the  New  England 
and  New  Hampshire  Conferences  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1830,  fourteen  were  pronounced  abolitionists. 
A  memorial  was  presented,  signed  by  two  hundred  minis- 
ters, asking  for  the  restoration  of  the  original  rule  on 
slavery.  Another  was  signed  by  2,284  lay  members. 
There  were  many  other  petitions,  all  of  which  were 
referred  to  a  committee. 

The  Conference  sat  in  Cincinnati,  and  during  its  prog- 
ress an  abolition  meeting  was  held  in  the  city,  which  was 
attended  by  George  Storrs  and  Samuel  Norris,  delegates 
from  New  Hampshire  to  the  General  Conference. 

On  May  11,  Roszel,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  moved 
that  the  committee  appointed  to  draft  a  pastoral  letter  to 
the  Church  be  instructed  to  take  notice  of  the  subject  of 
abolition  "that  has  so  seriously  agitated  the  different 
parts  of  our  country,  and  that  they  let  our  preachers, 
members,  and  friends  know  that  the  General  Conference 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


253 


is  opposed  to  the  agitation  of  that  subject,  and  will  use 
all  prudent  means  to  put  it  down."^  The  next  day, 
Roszel  moved  a  preamble  and  resolutions  censuring  two 
members  who  were  lecturing  on  the  subject  of  abolition 
in  Cincinnati.  The  debate  following  created  much  excite- 
ment, and  when  the  voting  took  place  the  resolution  of 
censure  was  adopted  by  122  for  and  11  against,  and  the 
resolution  condemning  ''modern  abolition"  was  adopted 
by  a  similar  vote,  as  was  the  whole  report.  These  are 
the  resolutions: 

Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Conferences  in  Gen- 
eral Conference  assembled,  1.  That  they  disapprove  in  the  most 
unqualified  sense  the  conduct  of  two  members  of  the  General 
Conference,  who  are  reported  to  have  lectured  in  this  city  re- 
cently upon  and  in  favor  of  modern  abolitionism. 

Resolved,  2.  That  they  are  decidedly  opposed  to  modern  aboli- 
tionism, and  wholly  disclaim  any  right,  wish,  or  intention  to 
interfere  in  the  civil  and  political  relation  between  master  and 
slave  as  it  exists  in  the  slave-holding  States  of  this  Union. 

Resolved,  3.  That  the  foregoing  preamble  and  resolutions  be 
published  in  our  periodicals.* 

After  the  General  Conference  of  IS.Sfi  the  Methodist 
abolitionists,  being  greatly  wrought  up  by  the  censure  of 
the  two  members  and  by  the  resolutions  passed  by  the 
body,  increased  their  activity.  Those  in  the  New  England 
Conference  in  1837.  anticipating  that  the  Bishop  would 
refuse  to  put  any  motion  involving  slavery  and  abolition, 
determined  to  block  all  business  and  adjourn  from  time 
to  time,  and  notified  the  Bishop  of  their  purpose.  As  a 
peace  measure  he  offered  to  allow  them  to  adopt  a 
respectful  petition  to  the  next  General  Conference.  The 
Bishops  presiding  in  other  Annual  Conferences  refused 
in  several  instances  to  put  motions  relating  to  the  sub- 
ject; and  the  Bishop  in  the  New  Hampshire  Conference 


iGeneral  Conference  Journal,  vol.  i,  p.  443. 
2Ibid..  vol.  i,  p.  447. 


254  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


stipulated  six  conditions  before  allowing  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  on  slavery,  and  these  the  Confer- 
ence refused  to  accept. 

THE  APPEAL  OF  SILAS  COMFORT 

To  the  General  Conference  of  1840  Silas  Comfort,  a 
member  of  the  Missouri  Conference,  appealed  from  a 
decision  which  had  adjudged  him  guilty  of  maladminis- 
tration in  a  trial  for  admitting  the  testimony  of  a  colored 
member  against  a  white  one.  When  his  case  was  taken 
up  Bishop  Roberts  decided  that  the  appeal  ought  not  to 
be  entertained  by  the  General  Conference.  As  it  was  the 
right  of  the  Conference  to  determine  such  questions,  a 
motion  to  entertain  it  was  made,  and  prevailed.  After  a 
long  debate,  the  Conference  rejected  the  i*esolution  before 
it,  which  affirmed  the  decision  of  the  Missouri  Conference. 
This  was  equal  to  reversing  the  Missouri  decision.  But 
the  next  day.  by  a  vote  of  74  to  4(1.  the  Conference 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  and  unjustifiable  for  any 
preacher  among  us  to  permit  colored  persons  to  give  testimony 
against  white  persons,  in  any  State  where  they  are  denied  that 
privilege  in  trials  at  law.^ 

Attempts  were  made  to  reconsider  this  resolution,  and 
a  compromise  was  finally  effected  in  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions. The  first  was  that  the  Conference  did  not  intend 
"to  express  or  imply  that  the  testimony  of  colored  per- 
sons against  white  persons  in  Church  trials,  is  either 
expedient  or  justifiable  in  any  of  the  slaveholding  States 
or  Territories  where  the  civil  laws  prohibit  such  testi- 
mony in  trials  at  law,"  and  also  that  "it  is  not  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Conference  to  prohibit  such  testimony  in 
Church  trials  in  any  of  the  States  or  Territories  where 
it  is  the  established  usage  of  the  Church  to  admit,  and 
where,  in  the  judgment  of  constitutional  adjudicatories 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1840,  vol.  ii,  p.  60. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


255 


of  the  Church,  such  testimony  may  be  admitted  with 
safety  to  the  peace  of  society,  and  the  best  interests  of 
all  concerned."  And  the  last  resolution  was,  "That  it 
is  not  the  intention  of  this  Conference,  in  either  of  the 
above  cases,  or  in  any  action  had  by  this  body,  to  express 
or  imply  any  distrust  or  want  of  confidence  in  the  Chris- 
tian piety  or  integrity  of  the  numerous  bodies  of  colored 
members  under  our  pastoral  care."^ 

Later  in  the  year  several  distinguished  ministers  in  the 
North  were  tried  and  censured  by  the  Conference  for 
promoting  abolition. 

While  these  proceedings  were  taking  place  in  the  North, 
conventions,  equally  excited  and  determined,  were  being 
held,  and  resolutions,  fully  as  uncompromising,  were 
being  passed  in  the  South,  both  in  Church  and  State. 

■General  Conference  Journal,  1840,  vol.  ii,  p.  109. 


CHAPTER  XXXII 


The  Bisection  of  the  Church  (Continued) 

Very  soon  after  the  adjourning  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1840  secessions  from  the  Church  began  in  the 
North,  which  in  the  end  resulted  in  the  establishment  of 
the  Weslej  an  Connection  of  America. 

Extraordinary  discussions  now  filled  the  press  of  the 
Church.  To  prevent  the  members  from  seceding,  and  to 
promote  the  cause  of  abolition,  which  they  had  espoused, 
the  Methodists  in  various  parts  held  numerous  conven- 
tions. At  one  in  Boston,  January  18,  1843,  it  was  re- 
solved, that 

slaveholding  is  sin;  that  every  slaveholder  is  a  sinner,  and 
ought  not  to  be  admitted  to  the  pulpit  or  the  communion;  that 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  responsible  for  slavery  within 
its  pale. 

Resolved,  That  the  only  way  to  prevent  entire  dissolution 
among  us  as  a  Church  is  an  entire  separation  from  the  South. 

It  was  under  such  circumstances  that  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844  convened  in  the  city  of  New  York,  Bishops 
Soule,  Hedding,  Andrew,  Waugh,  and  Morris  being 
present. 

Prior  to  the  assembling  of  this  Conference  the  Annual 
Conferences  were  asked  to  pass  judgment  on  the  propo- 
sition of  the  New  England  Conference  to  modify  the 
general  rule  on  slavery,  so  that  it  should  read:  "the  buy- 
ing or  selling  or  holding  men,  women,  or  children  as 
slaves  except  on  purpose  to  free  them."  The  votes  in 
favor  were  very  far  from  sufficient.  Many  memorials  of 
traveling  preachers  and  private  members  were  sent  to  the 
General  Conference,  but  only  one  in  seven  of  the  twenty- 
eight  Annual  Conferences  asked  for  antislavery  action. 
256 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


257 


Early  in  the  session  a  Committee  on  Slavery,  consisting 
of  one  member  from  each  Annual  Conference,  was  ordered. 

THE  APPEAL  OF  HARDING 

The  first  great  issue  was  the  appeal  of  F.  A.  Harding, 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  Slaves  had  come  into  his 
possession  by  marriage,  and  he  had  been  suspended  from 
his  ministerial  standing  for  refusing  to  manumit  them. 
The  appeal  was  admitted,  and  William  A.  Smith,  one  of 
the  ablest  of  the  Southera  debaters,  represented  the 
appellant.  Collins,  of  Baltimore,  supported  the  action  of 
that  Conference.  Early,  of  Virginia,  moved  that  the  deci- 
sion be  reversed.  Fifty-six  voted  in  favor,  but  117  against. 
"The  president  announced  that  this  vote  aflSrmed  the 
decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference."  Capers  appealed, 
but  tfce  chair  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  111  to  53.  New 
York,  New  England,  Providence,  Maine,  New  Hampshire, 
Troy,  Black  River,  Oneida,  Genesee,  Erie,  Pittsburgh, 
Ohio,  North  Ohio,  Michigan,  Indiana,  and  Baltimore  Con- 
ferences voted  unanimously  to  sustain  the  action  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference.  All  of  the  Rock  River  but  one 
voted  to  sustain;  all  of  Illinois  but  three;  all  of  the  New 
Jersey  but  two,  and  all  of  the  Philadelphia  save  three. 

The  Kentucky.  Holston,  Tennessee,  Memphis,  Arkansas, 
Mississippi,  Alabama,  Georgia,  Virginia,  South  Carolina, 
and  North  Carolina,  voted  unanimously  to  reverse.  Three 
of  the  four  from  Missouri  did  the  same,  and  also  one 
of  the  two  from  Texas;  the  other  was  a  Northerner 
who  had  been  a  missionary  in  Texas  and  who  returned 
at  once  to  the  North.  This  was  a  prophetic  division: 
indicating  cleavage  on  many  issues. 

THE  SITUATION  OF  BISHOP  ANDREW 

A  few  days  afterward  Collins  presented  the  following 
resolution : 

Whereas,  It  is  currently  reported,  and  generally  understood 


258  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


that  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
become  connected  with  slavery;  and, 

Whe)-eas,  It  is  due  to  this  General  Conference  to  have  a  proper 
understanding  of  the  matter;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  be  instructed 
to  ascertain  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  report  the  results  of  their 
Investigation  to  this  body  to-morrow  morning.' 

The  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  reported  "that 
Bishop  Andrew  is  connected  with  shivery,"  and  presented 
a  letter  from  the  Bishop  on  the  subject.  In  that  he  de- 
tailed that  a  lady  had  bequeatlied  to  him  a  mulatto  girl 
in  trust  that  he  should  take  care  of  her  until  she  should 
be  nineteen  years  of  age,  and  then,  with  her  consent,  she 
was  to  be  sent  to  Liberia ;  and  that  in  case  of  her  refusal 
he  should  keep  her  and  make  her  as  free  as  the  laws  of 
the  State  of  Georgia  permitted.  She  refused  to  go;  and 
the  laws  of  that  State  would  not  permit  her  emancipation  ; 
and  she  would  not  consent  to  leave  the  State.  In  that 
ease  he  was  a  slaveholder  legally,  hut  not  of  his  own 
consent. 

He  explained  that  five  years  ago  the  mother  of  his 
former  wife  had  left  to  her  daughter,  but  not  to  him,  a 
Negro  boy,  and  as  his  wife  died  without  a  will,  the  boy 
became  his  property.  "Emancipation  is  impracticable 
in  the  State,"  but  he  said  that  "the  boy  shall  be  at  liberty 
to  leave  the  State  whenever  I  [Bishop  Andrew]  shall  be 
satisfied  that  he  is  prepared  to  provide  for  himself,  or  I 
can  have  sufficient  security  that  he  will  be  protected  and 
provided  for  in  the  place  to  which  he  may  go." 

Also  he  informed  the  committee  that  he  v/as  married 
to  his  present  wife  in  the  preceding  January,  "she  being 
at  the  time  possessed  of  slaves,  inherited  from  her  former 
husband's  estate,  and  belonging  to  her."  Shortly  after 
the  marriage,  "being  umvilling  to  beco)iic  their  owner, 
regarding  them  as  strictly  hers,  and  the  law  not  permit- 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1844,  vol.  ii,  p.  58. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


259 


ting  their  emancipation,"  he  secured  them  to  her  by  a 
deed  of  trust.  He  said  further,  that  these  statements 
proved  that  he  had  neither  ^'bought  nor  sold  a  slave,"  and 
that  in  the  onh-  two  instances  in  which  he  was  a  legal 
slaveholder,  ''emancipation  is  impracticable";  and  as  to 
the  slaves  owned  by  his  wife  he  had  no  legal  responsibility 
in  the  premises,  nor  could  his  ivifc  emancipate  them  if  she 
desired  to  do  so.^ 

Griffith's  resolution  requesting  bishop  andrew 
TO  resign 

GriflBth,  seconded  by  Davis,  both  of  Baltimore,  moved 
"that  the  Rev.  James  0.  Andrew  he,  and  he  is  hereby 
affectionately  requested  to  resign  his  office  as  one  of  the 
Bif<hnps  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. (Jriftith 
said  that  Bishop  Andrew  had  by  a  voluntary  choice 
placed  himself  in  a  position  to  embarrass  himself  by  cir- 
cumstances that  rendered  it  impracticable  to  discharge 
the  duties  assigned  to  him;  and  that  this  was  a  dis- 
qualification and  sufficient  ground  to  ask  him  to  resign. 

Sandford,  of  New  York,  agreed  with  Griffith.  Winans, 
of  Mississippi,  was  not  "prepared  to  deny"  that  the  Con- 
ference had  an  abstract  right,  "with  or  without  cause, 
to  request  any  member  of  that  body  to  retire  from  the 
episcopacy,"  or  that  any  member  had  the  right  to  argue 
in  favor  of  the  propriety  of  such  a  request.    He  added : 

If  you  pass  this  action  in  the  mildest  form  in  which  j'ou  can 
approach  the  Bishop,  you  will  throw  every  minister  in  the  South 
hors  de  combat.  You  will  cut  us  off  from  all  connection  with 
masters  and  servants,  and  will  leave  us  no  option  .  .  .  but  to  be 
disconnected  with  your  body. 

Lovick  Pierce  indorsed  this  speech;  Berryman.  of  Mis- 
souri, opposed  the  resolution  as  having  "no  sanction  in  the 
Rules  of  Discipline."    Coleman,  of  Troy,  characterized 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1844,  vol.  ii,  pp.  63,  64. 
»Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  64. 


260  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


the  step  taken  by  Bishop  Andrew  in  marrying  a  woman 
holding  slaves  as  ^^wonderfully  unfortunate."  String- 
field,  of  Holston,  opposed  the  resolution  on  the  ground 
of  indirection  and  inexpediency.  He  said:  "If  the 
Bishop  be  shuffled  out  of  office,  some  one  must  be 
elected  to  fill  his  place;  and  such  a  one  whoever  he  may 
be,  will  meet  with  as  little  favor  in  the  South,  as 
Andrew  would,  with  all  his  disabilities,  in  the  North." 
Crowder,  of  Virginia,  essayed  to  show  that  no  good 
result  could  follow  from  the  resignation,  and  predicted 
a  division  of  the  Church,  a  division  of  the  United  States, 
and  finally  ^'civil  ivar  and  far-reaching  desolation  will 
result  from  the  course  proposed." 

Spencer,  of  Pittsburgh,  replying  to  the  inquiry,  "What 
specific  rule  has  he  [Andrew]  violated?"  said,  "The 
mere  silence  of  the  Discipline  in  regard  to  a  particular 
case  is  no  evidence  that  action  in  that  case  would  be 
contrary  to  our  rules." 

THE   SUBSTITUTE   OP   PINLEY   AND  TRIMBLE 

A  substitute  for  the  resolution  was  moved  by  Finley 
and  Trimble,  of  Ohio: 

Whereas,  The  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  any- 
thing calculated  to  destroy  our  Itinerant  General  Superintend- 
ency;  and. 

Whereas,  Bishop  Andrew  has  become  connected  with  slavery 
by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having  drawn  after  it 
circumstances  which  in  the  estimation  of  the  General  Conference 
will  greatly  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  Itinerant 
General  Superintendent,  if  not  in  some  places  entirely  prevent 
it;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that 
he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this  oflBce  so  long  as  this  impedi- 
ment remains.^ 

Stephen  Olin,  after  eulogizing  Bishop  Andrew,  dis- 
cussed the  whole  subject,  and  supported  the  substitute 

•General  Conference  Journal.  1844,  vol.  ii,  pp.  65,  66. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


261 


as  a  constitutional  measure,  dishonorable  to  no  one. 
unjust  to  no  one,  and  expressed  the  hope  that  it  would 
be  sent  forth  with  the  solemn  declaration  of  the  Confer- 
ence that  it  was  not  designed  as  a  punishment  or  a  cen- 
sure, but  merely  as  a  prudential  and  expedient  measure, 
calculated  to  avert  great  evils. 

Drake,  of  Mississippi,  maintained  that  in  no  vital 
principle  did  the  substitute  differ  from  the  original  reso- 
lution, though  in  the  preamble  he  thought  it  preferable. 
He  then  suggested  this  resolution : 

Whereas,  There  have  been  found  difficulties  of  a  serious  nature 
In  the  Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  exercising  a 
General  Superintendency ;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  General  Conference  recommend  to  the 
episcopacy  to  assign  to  each  Superintendent  his  sphere  of  labor 
for  the  next  four  years. 

Slicer.  of  Baltimore,  supported  the  Finley  and  Trimble 
substitute,  thinking  it  milder  than  the  other.  George 
F.  Pierce,  of  Georgia,  delivered  a  powerful  speech  charg- 
ing the  other  side  with  "practicing  legerdemain."  "They 
state  abstract  propositions  of  right,  which  no  man  will 
pretend  to  deny,  and  then  deduce  elaborate  argumenta- 
tions, and  make  them  to  bear  on  conclusions  with  which 
these  conclusions  have  no  more  to  do  than  the  law  of  the 
tides  has  with  the  polar  star."  He  denied  that  the  argu- 
ment of  expediency  had  one  half  the  force  assigned  to 
it.  He  predicted  that  in  ten  years  or  less,  if  the  division 
should  come,  which  he  believed  would  come,  "there  will 
not  be  one  shred  of  the  distinctive  peculiarities  of  Meth- 
odism left  within  the  Conferences  that  depart  from  us. 
.  .  .  Episcopacy  will  be  given  up,  presiding  eldership 
will  be  given  up,  the  itinerancy  come  to  an  end,  and 
Congregationalism  will  be  the  order  of  the  day." 

Longstreet  followed,  and  demonstrated  that  the  pro- 
posed action  would  necessarily  result  in  the  separation 


262  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


of  the  North  and  South.  J.  T.  Teck  antagonized  G.  F. 
Pierce  point  by  point.  Green,  of  Tennessee,  spoke  long 
and  powerfully  against  these  resolutions. 

Haniline  began  his  speech  by  proposing  two  questions : 
"Has  the  General  Conference  constitutional  authority  to 
pass  these  resolutions?  and  Is  it  proper  or  fitting  that 
we  should  do  it?"  He  argued  that  the  Conference  has 
the  right  under  the  Constitution  first  "from  the  genius 
of  our  polity  in  points  which  the  most  nearly  resemble 
this,"  and  "from  the  relations  of  the  General  Conference 
to  the  Church  and  to  the  episcopacy."  "The  General 
Conference  is  the  fountain  of  all  official  executive  au- 
thority." It  was  a  wonderful  addx'ess,  perhaps  in 
rhetoric  and  facility  of  speech;  but  he  went  beyond  the 
principles.  Had  there  been  only  the  discussion  of  the 
powers  of  the  episcopacy  and  the  General  Conference, 
if  the  Conference  had  not  been  under  a  burning  heat — 
the  majority  the  heat  of  abhorrence  of  slavery,  and  the 
minority  the  heat  against  what  they  considered  an  out- 
rage upon  their  constituents,  their  States  and  homes, 
and  upon  their  beloved  Bishop  Andrew — the  majority  of 
all  the  members  would  have  considered  the  speech  of 
Hamline  as  an  exaggeration  of  the  powers  of  the  General 
Conference.  As  it  was,  his  overdoing  caused  his  oppo- 
nents to  exaggerate  the  powers  of  the  episcopacy.  The 
Northern  members  were  determined  to  shake  ofif  the 
odium,  incurred  at  home,  of  a  Bishop  personally  con- 
nected with  slaveholding,  and  the  Southern  members 
felt,  that,  under  the  circumstances,  the  Bishop  was  right, 
that  the  fiery  abolition  spirit  and  speeches  were  an  attack 
upon  them,  and  that  the  resolutions  against  the  Bishop 
were  contrary  to  the  Constitution. 

William  A.  Smith  attacked  Hamline  with  great  force 
and  pertinency,  yet  increasing  the  heat  of  his  opponents. 

Hamline  having  declined  to  interrupt  Smith  while  on 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


263 


the  floor,  now  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  explain.  In 
doing  this  he  made  a  declaration  apparently  unknown 
to  many  writers.    It  is  this: 

I  never  said,  as  Brother  Smith  affirms,  that  the  administrative 
powers  of  this  Conference  are  "absolute."  I  said  they  were  "su- 
preme." "Absolute"  means  "not  bound."  This  Conference  is 
bound  in  all  its  powers,  whether  legislative,  judicial,  or  execu- 
tive, by  constitutional  restrictions.  "Supreme"  means  that  while 
acting  within  its  constitutional  limits,  its  decisions  are  final  and 
all-controlling.^ 

Collins  submitted  a  compromise  resolution,  which,  after 
a  preamble,  expressed  the  regret  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence that  Bishop  Andrew  had  become  connected  with 
slavery;  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  while  thus  circum- 
stanced he  could  not  perform  the  duties  of  his  office 
acceptably  to  a  large  portion  of  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  he  was  affectionately  and  earnestly 
requested  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to  free  himself 
from  connection  with  slavery  at  the  earliest  period  prac- 
ticable within  the  ensuing  four  years. 

BISHOP   ANDREW   DEFENDS  HIMSELF 

After  this  Bishop  Andrew  delivered  an  equally  perti- 
nent and  pathetic  address.  He  declared  himself  to  be  a 
slaveholder  for  conscience'  sake;  he  believed  the  provi- 
dence of  God  had  thrown  these  creatures  into  his  hands 
and  held  him  responsible  for  their  proper  treatment. 
He  said:  "What  can  I  do?  I  have  no  confession  to  make; 
I  intend  to  make  none.  I  stand  upon  the  broad  ground 
of  the  Discipline  on  which  I  took  office."  He  terminated 
with  these  words: 

The  Conference  can  take  its  course;  but  I  protest  against  the 
proposed  action  as  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  Discipline,  and 
an  invasion  of  the  rights  secured  to  me  by  that  book.    Yet  let 

■Debates  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  ii, 
p.  145. 


204  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


the  Conference  take  the  steps  they  contemplate;  I  enter  no  plea 
for  mercy;  I  make  no  appeal  for  sympathy;  Indeed,  I  love  those 
who  sympathize  with  me,  but  I  do  not  want  it  now.  I  wish  you 
to  act  coolly  and  deliberately,  and  in  the  fear  of  God;  but  I 
would  rather  that  the  Conference  would  change  the  issue,  and 
make  the  resolution  to  depose  the  Bishop,  and  take  the  question 
at  once,  for  I  am  tired  of  it.  The  country  is  becoming  agitated 
upon  the  subject,  and  I  hope  the  Conference  will  act  forthwith 
upon  the  resolution.' 


'Debates  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  ii, 
p.  150. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII 


The  Bisection  op  the  Church  (Continued) 

The  address  of  Bishop  Andrew  affected  his  friends  in 
the  South  sympathetically,  as  was  natural,  also  not  a 
few  from  other  parts  of  the  country;  but  the  closing 
words  seemed  to  many  a  note  of  defiance. 

Finley  defended  his  substitute.  Winans  rose  to  set 
forth  the  doctrine  that  the  General  Conference,  if  it 
took  any  action,  was  constitutionally  confined  to  expul- 
sion. He  would  not  concede  that  it  had  power  "to  sus- 
j)end,  depose,  or  reprove  a  Bishop  without  trial." 

Peter  Cartwright  delivered  a  striking  speech,  in  which 
he  said  it  would  be  "a  deplorable  fix"  if  we  had  no 
power  to  touch  a  Bishop  if  he  becomes  unacceptable  and 
unprofitable.  Dunwody,  of  South  Carolina,  opposed  the 
resolution  on  the  ground  of  unscripturalness,  unconsti- 
tutionality, and  mischievousness. 

Bishop  Soule  said  that,  in  his  deliberate  opinion,  the 
resolution  "deposes  Bishop  Andrew  without  form  or 
trial,"  and  intimated  that  it  would  absolutely  divide  the 
(Miurch,  and  that  he  knew  that  what  he  said  might  seal  his 
(Soule's)  fate. 

Durbin  spoke  at  much  length,  in  which  he  referred  to 
the  deep  feelings  in  his  breast  caused  by  the  remarks  of 
Bishop  Soule,  but  said  that  "strong  as  were  and  are  those 
feelings,  they  cannot  stifle  my  conscience  or  darken  my 
understanding."  Capers  took  issue  with  Durbin  in  all 
his  positions. 

A    MESSAGE   FROil    THE  BISHOPS 

The  next  morning  Bishop  Waugh  read  to  the  Confer- 
ence a  communication  from  the  Bishops  proposing  to 
defer  action  on  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  until  the  next 
265 


266  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

General  Conference.  Bishops  Soule,  Hedding,  Waugh, 
and  Morris  stated  their  belief  that  "such  a  division  of 
the  work  of  the  General  Superintendency  might  be  made, 
without  any  infraction  of  a  constitutional  principle,  as 
would  fully  employ  Bishop  Andrew  in  those  sections  of 
the  Church  in  which  his  presence  and  services  would  be 
welcome  and  cordial."^ 

Winans  said  that  the  Southern  delegates  were  of  one 
mind  to  entertain  the  proposition  of  the  Superintendents. 
The  communication  was  referred  to  a  committee.  The 
next  morning  before  it  reported  Bishop  Waugh  said 
lie  desired  his  name  to  remain  as  he  had  signed  it 
in  the  hope  that  it  would  "promote  the  future  peace  of 
the  Church."  Bishop  Morris  wished  his  name  to  stand 
"as  a  testimony  that  he  had  done  what  he  could  to  pre- 
serve the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church."  Bishop  Soule 
said  that  "he  had  not  changed  his  views  or  convictions 
in  any  way.  He  wished  his  signature  to  stand  on  that 
document,  which  had  now  gone  forth  to  the  American 
people  through  a  thousand  mediums. "^ 

But  Bishoj)  Hedding  said  that  "he  wished  to  withdraw 
his  name  from  the  Address  of  the  Bishops,  presented 
yesterday.  He  had  not  been  argued  or  persuaded  into 
signing  it,  but  had  attached  his  name  of  his  own  free 
will  and  accord,  because  he  thought  it  would  be  a  peace 
measure;  but  facts  had  come  to  his  knowledge  since 
which  led  him  to  believe  that  such  would  not  be  the  case. 
Again :  he  thought  it  would  be  adopted  without  debate, 
but  he  was  convinced  now  that  it  would  give  rise  to  much 
discussion,  and  therefore  he  wished  to  withdraw  his  name 
from  the  paper  on  the  table." 

The  facts  which  caused  Bishop  Hedding  to  make  so 
sudden  a  change,  were  not  generally  made  known  until 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1844,  vol.  ii,  p.  76. 
Hhid;  vol.  ii,  p.  81. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


267 


many  years  later,  when  James  Torter,  a  delegate  from  the 
New  England  Conference  to  the  General  Conference  of 
1844,  and  who  had  been  very  active  on  the  abolition  side, 
in  an  article  in  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  of  April, 
1871,  gave  this  account  of  the  affair: 

Abolitionists  regarded  this  as  a  most  alarming  measure.  Ac- 
cordingly, the  delegates  of  the  New  England  Conferences  were 
immediately  called  together,  and  after  due  deliberation  unani- 
mously adopted  a  paper,  declaring  in  substance  that  it  was  their 
solemn  conviction  that  if  Bishop  Andrew  should  be  left  by  the 
Conference  in  the  exercise  of  episcopal  functions  it  would  break 
up  the  most  of  our  Churches  in  New  England;  and  that  the  only 
way  they  could  be  holden  together  would  be  to  secede  in  a  body, 
and  invite  Bishop  Hedding  to  preside  over  them.  The  proposition 
was  also  concurred  in  by  some  of  our  most  distinguished  laymen 
who  were  present,  and  a  committee  of  two  was  appointed  to 
communicate  this  action  to  Bishop  Hedding  before  he  should  meet 
with  his  colleagues.  But  so  much  time  was  consumed  by  the 
meeting,  and  in  copying  the  document,  that  we  were  too  late,  and 
did  not  see  him,  deeming  it  dangerous  to  our  interests  to  call  him 
out,  believing  it  would  be  construed  and  used  in  a  way  to  defeat 
our  object.  The  next  morning  the  Bishops  (Soule,  Hedding, 
Waugh,  and  Morris)  reported  unanimously,  "recommending  the 
postponement  of  further  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew 
until  the  ensuing  General  Conference"  {Journal,  p.  75).  Their 
report  was  laid  over  one  day.  On  the  morning  of  June  1  Bishop 
Hedding  invited  one  of  that  committee  to  the  vestry  of  the 
church,  where  he  was  fully  informed  of  the  aforesaid  action.  He 
thought  our  fears  well  founded,  and  deeply  regretted  that  he 
had  not  known  our  action  before  he  signed  that  report,  and  said 
he  would  go  right  into  the  Conference  and  withdraw  his  name. 
He  did  so,  stating  that  he  had  signed  the  document  presented 
yesterday  as  a  peace  measure,  but  that  facts  had  come  to  his 
knowledge  since  which  led  him  to  believe  that  it  would  not 
make  peace,  and  that  it  might  be  productive  of  a  lengthened  de- 
bate, and  instead  of  removing  would  only  increase  the  difficulty 
{Journal,  p.  81).  This  so  impaired  the  influence  of  the  Bishops' 
recommendation  that  the  Conference  laid  it  on  the  table  by  a 
vote  of  95  to  84,  showing  very  clearly  that  it  would  have  carried 
had  not  Bishop  Hedding  withdrawn  his  name. 


268  CONSTITUTIONAIj  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Bangs  moved  that  the  communication  lie  on  the  table. 

Early,  of  Virginia,  called  for  the  ayes  and  noes;  and, 
on  taking  the  vote,  there  were  95  yeas  and  84  nays,' 

Bangs  said  that  "he  had  used  every  effort  in  his  power 
to  have  this  matter  brought  to  a  comi^romise,  and  had 
indulged  a  hope  that  this  would  be  the  result,"  but  "from 
what  had  been  told  him  by  members  of  the  North  and 
South  not  a  vestige  of  hope  remained,"  and  he  therefore 
would  "urge  immediate  action  on  the  substitute  if  it 
was  before  the  house."  He  explained  that  "he  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  the  South  objected  to  the  proposal  of 
the  Bishops,  but  that  the  Conference  could  not  come  to 
any  general  compromise  on  the  subject." 

Collins  opposed  the  motion  for  taking  up  the  Order  of 
the  Day;  "he  had  not  yet  given  up  all  hopes  of  peace"; 
be  believed  "that  if  the  body  would  listen  to  a  proposition 
from  Dr.  Durbin  a  compromise  might  yet  be  effected." 

Paine  said  he  was  a  man  of  peace.  He  considered  the 
substitute  to  be  mandatory,  and  it  placed  the  South  in 
an  awkward  jjosition.  "He  hoped  that  some  ground 
would  be  proposed  by  the  North  that  both  could  occupy. 
But  if  there  was  no  such  common  ground,  the  South  was 
j)repared  for  the  result." 

James  Porter  deduced  from  the  discussion  of  the  last 
fortnight  evidence  of  the  peace-loving  character  of  the 
Northern  members:  "they  wanted  to  be  one  body,"  hut 
they  could  not  "live  as  one  body  with  anything  less  than 
the  suhstitutc." 

Mitchell,  of  Rjock  River,  proposed  an  amendment  to  the 
effect  that  Bishop  Andrew  should  resign  until  a  majority 
of  the  Annual  Conferences  desired  him  to  resume  his 
office. 

At  this  point  Bishop  Soule  said  that  "he  had  good 
reason  to  believe  that  brethren  had  entertained  erroneous 

'Further  Debate  and  Vote  on  Finley's  substitute. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


269 


views  with  respei^t  to  the  position  he  occupied  at  the  time 
he  addressed  the  Conference  on  this  subject ;  and  he  now 
wished  to  correct  tiiose  views,  that  there  might  be  a  proper 
understanding  in  the  matter  before  they  had  action  on 
the  substitute.  It  must  have  occurred  to  the  brethren 
that  his  remarks  at  that  time  were  entirely  irrelevant, 
except  on  the  understanding  that  the  resolution  was 
mandatory.  He  looked  upon  it  as  suspending  Bishop 
Andrew.  There  was  a  great  difference  between  suspension 
and  advice.  If  this  action  was  not  intended  to  be  judicial, 
he  should  withdraw  many  of  his  remarks.  If  it  was  a 
mandatory  act,  it  was  judicial.  .  .  .  One  brother  had 
said  that  if  the  resolution  passed,  Bishop  Andrew  was 
still  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  If 
this  was  the  case,  his  renmrks,  he  must  repeat,  were 
irrelevant.  He  considered  the  proceeding  as  a  judicial 
one,  suspending  Brother  Andrew  from  his  duties  as  a 
Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."^ 

The  substitute  of  Fin  ley  was  then  put  to  a  "yea  and  nay 
vote,"  with  the  result  that  110  voted  in  the  affirmative, 
and  G8  in  the  negative.  Two  days  later  the  votes  of  two 
members,  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken,  were  added, 
making  the  total  111  to  69,  the  entire  Conference  voting. 
All  the  votes  in  the  affirmative  were  from  the  Northern, 
Western,  and  Eastern  Conferences,  except  one,  J.  Clark,^ 
of  Texas. 

Of  the  69  votes  in  the  negative,  18  were  from  the  North- 
ern and  Western,  the  other  51  were  all  from  Southern 
Conferences. 

CAPERS  PROPOSES  TWO  GENERAL  CONFERENCES 

On  June  3,  Capers  introduced  resolutions  the  substance 
of  which,  with  much  of  the  phraseology,  are  here  given: 

'Debates  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  ii, 
p.  190. 

Northern  minister  temporarily  in  the  South. 


270  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

They  proposed  that  the  General  Conference  recommend  to  the 
Annual  Conferences  to  suspend  the  constitutional  restrictions 
which  limit  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference  so  far,  and  so 
far  only,  as  to  allow  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
these  United  States  and  Territories,  and  the  Republic  of  Texas, 
shall  constitute  two  General  Conferences  to  meet  quadrennially, 
the  one  at  some  point  South,  and  the  other  North. 

That  each  shall  have  full  powers,  under  the  limitations  and 
restrictions  which  are  now  of  force  and  binding  on  the  General 
Conference,  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church,  within 
their  territorial  limits,  respectively,  and  to  elect  Bishops  for 
the  same.  The  third  resolution  designated  the  territory  to  be 
superintended  by  each  respectively.  The  fourth  provided  that 
as  soon  as  three  fourths  of  all  the  members  of  all  the  Annual 
Conferences  shall  have  voted  and  approved  the  same,  the 
Southern  and  Northern  General  Conferences  shall  be  deemed  as 
having  been  constituted  by  such  approval;  and  that  it  shall  be 
competent  for  the  Southern  Annual  Conferences  to  elect  dele- 
gates to  meet  in  the  city  of  Nashville,  Tennessee,  May  1,  1848,  or 
sooner,  if  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of  the  members  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  composing  that  General  Conference  shall  desire  the 
same.  The  fifth  stipulated  that  the  Book  Concerns  at  New  York 
and  Cincinnati  should  be  held  and  conducted  as  the  property  and 
for  the  benefit  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences  as  heretofore;  editors 
and  Agents  to  be  elected  once  in  four  years  at  the  time  of  the 
session  of  the  Northern  General  Conference,  and  the  votes  of  the 
Southern  General  Conference  to  be  cast  by  delegates  of  that  Con- 
ference attending  the  Northern  for  that  purpose.  The  sixth 
was  that  the  Church  organization  for  foreign  missions  should  be 
maintained  and  conducted  jointly  between  the  two  General  Con- 
ferences as  one  Church  in  such  manner  as  should  be  agreed  upon 
from  time  to  time  between  the  two  branches  of  the  Church.' 

These  resolutions  were  referred  to  a  committee  of  nine, 
who  were  instructed  to  report  on  them  as  soon  as  possible. 

DECLARATION  AND  PROTEST  FROM  SOUTHERN  DELEGATES 

Longstreet  presented  a  declaration  from  the  Southern 
and  Southwestern  delejjates,  which  was  referred  to 
another  committee  of  nine,  as  follows: 

'General  Conference  Journal.  1844,  vol.  ii,  pp.  86,  87. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


271 


The  delegates  of  the  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States 
take  leave  to  declare  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  that  the  continued  agitation  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church;  the  frequent 
action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Conference;  and  especially 
the  extra-judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  which  re- 
sulted, on  Saturday  last,  in  the  Airtual  suspension  of  him  from 
his  ofBce  as  Superintendent,  must  produce  a  state  of  things  in 
the  South  which  renders  a  continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
General  Conference  over  these  Conferences  inconsistent  with 
the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding  States.' 

Concerning  this,  J.  B.  McFerrin  offered  this  resolution : 

That  the  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the 
communication  of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  Conferences 
be  instructed,  provided  they  cannot  in  their  judgment  devise  a 
plan  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  now  existing 
in  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a 
constitutional  plan  for  a  mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the 
Church.' 

The  next  day  a  Protest,  written  bv  Henry  B.  Bascom 
and  signed  by  sixty  members,  against  the  resolution  con- 
cerning Bishop  Andrew,  was  presented  to  the  Conference. 
The  chair  decided  that  this  be  entered  upon  the  Journal; 
and  Matthew  Simpson  offered  a  resolution, 
that  the  Conference  appoint  Brothers  Olin,  Durbin,  and  Hamline 
a  committee  to  prepare  a  statement  of  the  facts  connected  with 
the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew;  and  that  they 
have  liberty  to  examine  the  Protest  just  presented  by  the  South- 
ern brethren.' 

STATUS  OF  BISHOP  ANDREW 

The  Bishops  addressed  a  letter  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence requesting  official  instruction  in  answer  to  the  fol- 
lowing questions : 

1.  Shall  Bishop  Andrew's  name  remain  as  it  now  stands  in 
the  Minutes,  Hymn  Book,  and  Discipline,  or  shall  it  be  struck  oft 
of  these  official  records? 

'General  Conference  Journal.  1S44,  vol.  ii.  p.  109. 
Ibid.,  vol.  ii,  p.  111. 
»Ibid.,  vol.  ii.  p.  113. 


272  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


2.  How  shall  the  Bishop  obtain  his  support?  As  provided  for 
in  the  Form  of  Discipline,  or  in  some  other  way? 

3.  What  work,  if  any,  may  the  Bishop  perform;  and  how 
shall  he  be  appointed  to  the  work.' 

To  answer  these  (luestions  three  resolutions  were 
adopted,  the  first  by  a  vote  of  155  to  17 ;  the  second,  152 
to  14;  and  the  third  103  to  07.    They  were: 

1.  Resolved,  As  the  sense  of  this  Conference,  that  Bishop  An- 
drew's name  stand  in  the  Minutes,  Hymn  Book,  and  Discipline, 
as  formerly. 

2.  Resolved.  That  the  rule  in  relation  to  the  support  of  a 
Bishop,  and  his  family,  applies  to  Bishop  Andrew. 

3.  Resolved,  That  whether  in  any,  and  if  any,  in  what  work, 
Bishop  Andrew  be  employed,  is  to  be  determined  by  his  own 
decision  and  action,  in  relation  to  the  previous  action  of  this 
Conference  on  his  case.' 

The  last  of  these  evoked  a  remarkable  speech  from 
Winans,  who  said  that  he 

should  go  against  the  resolution.  The  Discipline  of  the  Church 
knew  no  discretion  in  an  officer  of  recognized  standing  to  with- 
draw himself  from  the  duties  of  his  office.  By  the  two  votes  just 
passed,  it  was  clear  and  unequivocal  that  Bishop  Andrew  had  an 
unquestioned  standing  as  a  Bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  by  a  vote  of  a  large  majority  of  that  Church,  and  the 
provision  of  the  Discipline:  and  he  congratulated  the  South  on 
the  fact,  that  they  had  now  a  recognized  slaveholding  Bishop, 
whose  name  appeared  on  all  their  records  after  being  known  aa 
a  slaveholder.  And  that  Bishop  had  no  right  to  elect  as  to 
whether  he  would  serve,  or  in  what  way  he  would  serve.^ 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  OF  NINE 

The  committee  of  nine,  on  the  declaration  of  the  mem- 
bers from  the  slaveholdinjj  States,  submitted  this  report: 

Whereas,  A  declaration  has  been  presented  to  this  General 
Conference,  with  the  signatures  of  fifty-one  delegates  of  the  body, 
from  thirteen  Annual  Conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States, 

•General  Confcronce  Journal  1844,  vol.  ii.  pp.  117,  118. 
2Ibid..  vol.  ii.  p.  118. 

'Debates  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  Journal,  vol.  ii,  p.  216. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


273 


representing  that,  for  various  reasons  enumerated,  the  objects 
and  purposes  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church  organization 
cannot  be  successfully  accomplished  by  them  under  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  this  General  Conference  as  now  constituted.  .  .  . 

Resolved.  That,  should  the  delegates  from  the  Conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  distinct 
ecclesiastical  connection,  the  following  rule  shall  be  observed 
with  regard  to  the  Northern  boundary  of  such  connection:  All 
the  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences  adhering  to  the  Church  in 
the  South,  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said  so- 
cieties, stations,  and  Conferences,  shall  remain  under  the  unmo- 
lested pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church;  and  the  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  in  no  wise  attempt  to 
organize  Churches  or  societies  within  the  limits  of  the  Church 
South,  etc. 

It  was  understood  that  the  same  rule  should  be  opera- 
tive in  the  South ;  but  there  was  a  provision  that  "this  rule 
shall  apply  only  to  societies,  stations,  and  Conferences 
bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  and  not  to  interior 
charges,  which  shall  in  all  cases  be  left  to  the  care  of 
that  Church  within  whose  territory  they  are  situated." 
"That  ministers,  local  and  traveling,  of  every  grade  and 
office,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they 
prefer,  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame,  attach 
themselves  to  the  Church  South." 

Another  vital  proposition  of  the  report  was  that  the 
General  Conference  "recommend  to  all  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences at  their  first  approaching  sessions,  to  authorize 
a  change  of  the  Sixth  Restrictive  Article,  so  that  the  first 
clause  shall  read  thus: 

"They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern, 
nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the 
benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and 
worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  and  to 
such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  upon  by  the  votes  of 
two  thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference." 
The  object  of  the  change  in  the  Restrictive  Rule  was  to 
make  legal  the  paying  over  to  the  Church  South  their 


274  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


proportionate  part  of  the  property  and  proceeds  of  the 
Book  Concern ;  and  this  was  provided  for  in  the  remain- 
ing resolutions  of  the  report.^ 

Elliott  argued  extensively  in  favor  of  the  resolutions. 
Griffith,  of  Baltimore,  "denied  that  anyone  had  the  right 
to  divide  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  He  said  that 
"the  report  went  to  disfranchise  many  members  of  their 
common  right  to  choose  where  they  will  belong." 

Cartwright  criticized  the  speech  of  Elliott,  agreeing 
with  Griffith.  Paine  declared  that  the  measure  was  a 
peace  measure  designed  to  produce  and  maintain  "the 
fraternal  and  loving  spirit."  Luckey  thought  the  reso- 
lution "provisionary,"  "settling  nothing  at  present,  but 
providing  in  an  amicable  and  proper  way  for  such  action 
as  it  might  hereafter  be  necessary  to  take." 

Bangs  proposed  that  matters  should  be  adjusted  in 
such  relations  as  exist  between  the  Irish  and  English 
Methodist  Church,  as  arranged  by  Wesley.  Finley  "could 
see  in  the  report  no  proposition  to  divide  the  Church," 
nor  did  he  see  anything  unconstitutional. 

Bond  besought  the  body  to  adhere  to  the  Conference 
lines  as  they  now  stood,  and  there  would  be  peace.  In 
any  other  case  "a  most  disastrous  state  of  things  will 
exist  in  every  territory  where  slaveholding  and  non-slave- 
holding  Conferences  are  contiguous  to  each  other." 

Collins  and  James  Porter  supported  the  report  as  the 
best  proposition  under  the  circumstances. 

After  a  motion  to  reconsider  in  order  to  introduce  an 
amendment  by  striking  out  "delegates"  and  inserting 
"Conferences,"  Ranford  "opposed  the  report  and  the  reso- 
lutions." He  believed  this  measure  to  Ic  praeticnlhj 
^'opening  the  door  and  inviting  the  brethren  to  separated 

Winans  gave  the  history  of  the  matter  in  committee, 


'Debates  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  General  Conference  Journal,  vol.  ii, 
pp.  217.  218. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


275 


and  said,  "the  only  proposition  was  that  they  might  have 
liberty,  if  necessary,  to  organize  a  separate  Conference." 

Hamline  declared  that  the  committee  "had  carefully 
avoided  presenting  any  resolution  which  would  embrace 
the  idea  of  a  separation  or  division."  The  Article  which 
was  referred  to  the  Annual  Conferences  for  division  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  Book  Concern  "had  not  necessarily 
any  connection  with  division."  After  discussing  the  sub- 
ject for  two  days,  and  adopting  the  several  resolutions 
singly,  the  report  as  a  whole  was  adopted. 

THE  "reply  to  the  PROTEST" 

The  report  of  the  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a 
statement  of  facts  in  relation  to  the  action  of  the  Confer- 
ence in  Bishop  Andrew's  case  to  serve  the  purpose  of  a 
reply  to  the  protest  presented  by  the  Southern  brethren, 
was  read  to  the  Conference  by  Durbin.  It  contains  a 
condensed  history  of  the  episcopacy  relative  to  slavery, 
but  is  not  specially  important  until  it  reaches  the  status 
of  Bishop  Andrew,  when  it  quotes  the  adopted  resolution 
"That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  he 
desist  from  the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this  im- 
pediment remains,"  upon  which  it  says : 

The  action  of  the  General  Conference  was  neither  judicial  nor 
punitive.  It  neither  achieves  nor  intends  a  deposition,  nor  so 
much  as  a  legal  suspension.  Bishop  Andrew  is  still  a  Bishop; 
and  should  he,  against  the  expressed  sense  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, proceed  in  the  discharge  of  his  functions,  Tits  official 
acts  would  he  valid,. 

On  this  proposition  the  Reply  to  the  Protest  Sases  the 
constitutionality  of  the  action,  and  thus  the  right  of  the 
General  Conference  to  express  itself,  in  the  language  of 
the  resolution. 

Crowder  declared  the  report  to  be  "an  insult  to  the 
whole  South,"  and  Early  confirmed  his  view. 


276  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Objection  was  made  to  entering  of  the  "Reply  to  the 
Protest"  on  the  Journal.  It  was  afiQrmed  that  the  Con- 
ference had  "violated  right  by  appointing  a  committee  to 
reply  to  the  Protest." 

When  the  motion  to  spread  the  report  on  the  Journal 
and  to  print  it  was  put,  it  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  116  in 
the  affirmative,  and  26  in  the  negative.  Only  19  of  the 
Southern  delegates  present  voted  against  it:  20  voted 
for  it. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV 


The  Bisection  of  the  Church  (Continued) 

In  August  of  the  same  year  Bishop  Andrew  issued  an 
address  to  the  public  justifying  his  course  and  that  of  the 
Southern  delegates. 

The  Bishops  prepared  two  plans  of  episcopal  distribu- 
tion. In  the  one  published  they  gave  Andrew  no  work, 
and  Soule  protested  against  it.  Bishop  Morris,  in  a 
private  letter  to  Bishop  Andrew,  said  that  the  published 
plan  was  upon  the  assumption  he  would  decide  not  to 
act,  and  the  reserve  plan  was  in  anticipation  of  his 
possible  decision  to  take  work.  Bishop  Soule  invited 
Bishop  Andrew  to  join  him  at  Frankfort,  the  seat  of 
the  Kentucky  Conference,  and,  having  no  separate  duty 
asigned  him,  he  assisted  Soule  in  his  district. 

THE  JIETHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH^  SOUTH,  ESTABLISHED 

The  Southern  Conferences  arranged  for  a  convention 
In  Louisville,  Kentucky,  May  1,  1845,  and  invited  the 
Bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  attend. 
After  discussion  the  Conferences  proceeded  to  establish 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  the  following 
words : 

We,  the  delegates  of  said  Annual  Conferences,  acting  under 
the  provisional  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844,  do  solemnly  declare  the  jurisdiction  hitherto 
exercised  over  said  Annual  Conferences  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  entirely  dissolved;  and 
that  said  Annual  Conferences  shall  be  and  they  hereby  are  con- 
stituted a  separate  ecclesiastical  connection  under  the  provisional 
Plan  of  Separation  aforesaid,  and  based  upon  the  Discipline  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  comprehending  the  doctrines 
and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical,  and  economical  rules  and  regu- 
277 


278  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

lations  of  said  Discipline,  except,  only,  in  so  far  as  verbal  altera- 
tions may  be  necessary  to  a  distinct  organization,  and  to  be 
known  by  the  style  and  title  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

They  invited  Soule  and  Andrew  to  become  Bishops 
of  the  new  Church  and  Andrew  accepted.  Soule  sent 
a  communication  stating  that  he  must  act  as  Bishop 
among  the  Northern  Conferences  until  he  had  completed 
the  plan  of  visitation  formed  by  the  Bishops  in  New 
York. 

In  July,  1845,  Bishops  Hedding,  Waugh,  Morris,  Janes, 
and  Hamline  published  to  the  Church: 

That  the  Plan  reported  by  the  select  committee  of  nine  at  the 
last  General  Conference,  and  adopted  by  that  body  in  regard  to 
a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connection,  ...  is  regarded  by  us  as  of 
binding  obligation  in  the  premises  so  far  as  our  administration 
is  concerned. 

At  first  both  divisions  seemed  to  be  disposed  to  keep 
peace  along  the  border.  The  South  had  made  no  change  in 
the  rule  regarding  slavery,  in  part  for  the  sake  of  peace 
and  to  avoid  the  charge  of  being  a  proslavery  Church,  and 
doubtless  in  part  to  be  acceptable  to  such  border  Churches 
and  ministers  as  because  of  contiguity  or  social  considera- 
tions might  naturally  wish  to  affiliate  with  them. 

THE  ACTS  OF  THE  GENERAL  CONFERENCE  OF  1848 

In  consequence  of  the  foregoing  events,  the  General 
Conference  of  1848,  which  sat  at  Pittsburgh,  represented 
780  traveling  preachers  and  532,290  members  less  than 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  numbered  four  years 
before. 

Bishop  Soule  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Conference, 
declaring  that  though  he  had  adhered  to  the  Church, 
South,  he  held  himself  amenable  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  his  acts  until 
May  1,  184G.    He  appealed  to  the  Conference  to  investi- 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


279 


gate  his  character  and  conduct,  on  which  the  Conference 
resolved  that 

It  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference,  that  they  have  no 
jurisdiction  over  the  Rev.  Bishop  Soule,  and  can  exercise  no 
ecclesiastical  authority  over  him/ 

During  the  interval  intense  oposition  had  developed  to 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844  with  respect 
to  the  Plan  and  the  proposition  to  change  the  Restrictive 
Rule  relative  to  the  Book  Concern ;  and  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences had  refused  to  concur  with  this  part  of  the 
plan ;  the  vote  being,  for  concurrence  in  the  staying  Con- 
ferences, 1,164,  in  the  departing,  971;  total,  2,135;  for 
nonconcurrence,  1,070;  but  at  that  time  three  fourths  of 
all  voting  was  necessary  to  change  the  Restrictive  Rules. 

Bishop  McTyeire,  writing  of  this,  says:  "It  cannot  be 
allowed  for  a  moment  that  these  1,070  were  actuated  by 
motives  of  dishonesty."  He  analyzes  the  elements  thus: 
That  some  repented  of  their  cooperation  in  adopt- 
ing the  Plan  of  Separation ;  certain  editors  "wrought  con- 
fusion"; "the  political  elements  were  intensified  daily  in 
their  opposition  to  a  peaceable  adjustment";  and  "the 
severity  with  which  some  of  the  Southern  assemblies  re- 
viewed the  bearings  and  doings  of  Northern  Methodism 
when  declaring  in  favor  of  the  convention  at  Louisville 
was  very  irritating."-  Some  believed  that  perhaps  by  de- 
feating the  proposed  constitutional  change  providing  for 
dividing  the  Church  property  the  Plan  itself  would  be 
defeated,  and  the  Church  thus  kept  from  being  divided. 

The  Conference  of  1848  received  a  communication  from 
the  Board  of  Commissioners  appointed  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  adjust  the  property  question, 
stating  that  they  had  informed  the  Commissioners 
appointed  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  their 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1848.  vol.  iii.  p.  47. 
^Hisloru  of  Methodism,  p.  646. 


280  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

readiness  to  proceed,  and  bad  been  by  Ikem  referred  to 
that  General  Conference,  and  that  they  were  then  present 
in  Pittsburgh  ready  to  negotiate.  The  Conference,  on 
various  assigned  grounds,  declared  that  "in  view  of  these 
facts,  as  well  as  for  the  principles  contained  in  the  pre- 
ceding declarations,  there  exists  no  obligation  on  the  part 
of  this  Conference  to  observe  the  provisions  of  said  Plan. 
And  it  is  hereby  declared  null  and  void."^ 

However,  it  was  resolved  to  submit  the  disputed  prop- 
erty claims  to  the  decision  of  disinterested  arbiters,  un- 
less the  Book  Agents,  on  the  advice  of  eminent  legal 
counsel,  "shall  be  satisfied  that  when  clothed  with  all  the 
authority  which  the  General  Conference  can  confer,  their 
corporate  powers  will  not  warrant  them  to  submit  said 
claims  to  arbitration,  then  this  resolution  should  not 
be  binding  upon  them."^ 

It  was  also  enacted  that  if  they  had  not  the  power  to 
submit  the  case  to  voluntary  arbitration,  and  they  should 
be  sued  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the 
Book  Agents  were  authorized  to  tender  "an  adjustment 
of  their  preferred  claims  by  a  legal  arbitration,"  and  if 
they  were  not  authorized  to  do  this,  and  no  suit  should 
6e  commenced  by  the  commissioners  from  the  South,  then 
the  General  Conference,  "being  exceedingly  desirous  of 
effecting  an  amicable  settlement  of  said  claim,"  recom- 
mended to  the  Annual  Conferences  to  suspend  the  Sixth 
Restrictive  Rule  so  far  as  "to  authorize  the  Book  Agents 
to  submit  said  claim  to  arbitration." 

Although  these  resolutions  were  adopted,  there  was  in 
each  instance  a  heavy  vote  against  them. 

THE  BEGINNING  OF  LITIGATION 

The  Commissioners  of  the  Church  South  gave  notice 
August  20,  1849,  that  they  had  entered,  in  the  United 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1848,  vol.  iii,  pp.  84,  86. 
iJouTnal,  1848,  p.  94. 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


2S1 


States  Circuit  Courts  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and 
Ohio,  suits  for  the  division  of  the  propert}^  of  the  Book 
Concern.  The  suit  in  Ohio  had  been  filed  on  the  12th  of 
the  preceding  month,  but  it  was  not  argued  until  June  4, 
1852.  The  decision  of  Judge  Leavitt  in  that  case  was 
adverse  to  the  Church  South,  and  was  founded  upon  these 
propositions  : 

1.  The  General  Conference  is  a  delegated  body  with  limited 
powers,  and  has  no  authority,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  divide 
the  Church. 

2.  That  in  the  Plan  of  Separation  there  is  no  claim  to  the 
exercise  of  such  power. 

3.  That  the  Conference  is  prohibited  from  using  the  produce 
of  the  Book  Concern,  except  for  a  particular  purpose  and  in  a 
particular  way,  and  the  Annual  Conferences  had  refused  to  re- 
move the  prohibition. 

4.  That  it  is  a  charity  to  be  used  only  for  the  benefit  of  those 
who  remain  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  that  any  of  its 
members  may  withdraw,  but  in  doing  so  take  with  them  no 
rights  of  property. 

5.  That  the  withdrawal  of  the  Southern  Conferences  was 
voluntary  and  not  induced  by  positive  necessity. 

6.  That  the  defendants  are  required  by  law  to  comply  with 
the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  General  Conference,  and  there- 
fore had  been  guilty  of  no  breach  of  trust. 

7.  And  that  this  is  not  a  case  for  a  court  of  equity  to  con- 
struct a  new  scheme. 

Another  suit  had  been  brought  in  New  York  by  H.  B. 
Bascom  and  others.  This  was  tried  in  May,  1851,  in  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court  for  the  southern  district  of 
New  Y''ork.  The  counsel  for  the  Church  South  were  Daniel 
Lord,  Reverdy  Johnson,  and  Reverdy  Johnson,  Jr.  The 
counsel  for  the  Book  Agents,  who  were  made  defendants 
in  the  suit,  were  Rufus  Choate,  George  Wood,  and  Enoch 
L.  Fancher.  The  presiding  judge,  Nelson,  decided  for 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  declaring  that 
the  General  Conference  of  18-11  proceeded  upon  the 


282  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

assumption  of  unquestioned  power  to  erect  the  Church 
into  two  separate  ecclesiastical  establishments.  From 
that  proposition  he  deduced  the  conclusion  that  as  the 
separation  had  taken  place  by  the  action  of  the  founders 
of  the  fund,  it  could  not  be  maintained  that  the  Confer- 
ences which  fell  into  the  new  organization  had  forfeited 
the  character  which  entitled  them  to  its  enjoyment. 

THE  CASE  GOES  TO  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES 

Meanwhile  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
against  the  decision  of  Judge  Leavitt  in  the  suit  brought 
in  Ohio.  The  case  was  heard  in  Washington  in  April, 
1854.  Judge  Nelson  was  chosen  to  write  the  decision, 
which  was  in  substance  the  same  as  that  which  he  deliv- 
ered in  the  New  York  case,  the  judgment  of  the  Ohio 
Circuit  Court  being  unanimously  reversed,  and  the  Plan 
of  Separation  enforced  in  all  of  its  provisions  and  par- 
ticulars. 

In  this  crucial  test  the  counsel  on  each  side  were 
prompted  by  distinguished  Methodists:  William  A.  Smith, 
of  Virginia,  and  A.  L.  P.  Green,  of  Tennessee,  on  the 
Southern  side;  and  Nathan  P.angs  and  George  Peck,  on 
the  Northern. 

At  that  time  one  of  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  was  John  McLean,  a  man  equally 
distinguished  for  legal  lore,  acumen,  and  probity.  As 
he  was  a  Methodist  and  had  expressed  an  opinion,  he 
took  no  part  in  the  case. 

THE  SALIENT  POINTS  IN  THE  DECISION  OF  THE  FEDERAL 
SUPREME  COURT 

The  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
contains  the  following  paragraph: 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


283 


The  Powers  of  the  General  Conference  Before  it  Became  a 
Delegated  Body 
It  cannot,  therefore,  be  denied — indeed,  it  has  scarcely  been 
denied — that  this  body,  while  composed  of  all  the  traveling 
preachers,  possessed  the  power  to  divide  it,  and  authorize  the 
organization  and  establishment  of  the  two  separate  Independent 
Churches.  The  power  must  necessarily  be  regarded  as  inherent 
in  the  General  Conference.  As  they  might  have  constructed  two 
ecclesiastical  organizations  over  the  territory  of  the  United  States 
originally,  if  deemed  expedient,  in  the  place  of  one,  so  they  might, 
at  any  subsequent  period,  the  power  remaining  unchanged. 

The  Court  then  entered  into  an  argument  as  to  the 
power  remaining  in  the  body,  and  discussed  at  length  the 
contrary  argument  based  upon  the  Six  Restrictive  Rules. 

The  Present  Powers  of  the  Conference 
Subject  to  these  restrictions,  the  delegated  Conference  pos- 
sessed the  same  powers  as  when  composed  of  the  entire  body  of 
preachers.  And  it  will  be  seen  that  these  relate  only  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church,  its  representation  in  the  General  Con- 
ference, the  episcopacy,  discipline  of  its  preachers  and  members, 
the  Book  Concern,  and  Charter  Fund.  In  all  other  respects,  and 
in  everything  else  that  concerns  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  the 
General  Conference  represents  the  sovereign  power  the  same  as 
before.  This  is  the  view  taken  by  the  General  Conference  itself, 
as  exemplified  by  the  usage  and  practice  of  that  body.  In  1820 
they  set  off  to  the  British  Conference  of  Wesleyan  Methodists  the 
several  circuits  and  societies  in  Lower  Canada.  And  in  1828  they 
separated  the  Annual  Conferences  of  Upper  Canada  from  their 
jurisdiction,  and  erected  the  same  into  a  distinct  and  independent 
Church.  These  instances,  together  with  the  present  division,  in 
1844,  furnish  evidence  of  the  opinions  of  the  eminent  and  ex- 
perienced men  of  this  Church  in  these  several  Conferences,  of 
the  power  claimed,  which,  if  the  question  was  otherwise  doubtful, 
should  be  regarded  as  decisive  in  favor  of  it.  We  will  add  that 
all  the  Northern  Bishops,  five  in  number,  in  council  in  July,  1845, 
acting  under  the  Plan  of  Separation,  regarded  it  as  of  binding 
obligation,  and  conformed  their  action  accordingly. 

The  Court  went  so  far  as  to  declare  that  "if  the  bene- 
ficiaries connected  with  the  South  had  forfeited  the  right 


284  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

to  the  fund,  the  Korth  was  in  the  same  condition ;  that  its 
General  Conference  is  not  the  General  Conference  of  the 
old  Church,  uor  does  it  represent  the  interest  or  possess 
territorially  the  authority  of  the  same;  nor  are  they  the 
body  under  whose  care  this  fund  was  placed  by  its 
founders."  After  discussing  this  at  some  length  the  Court 
said: 

But  we  do  not  agree  that  this  division  was  made  without  the 
proper  authority.  On  the  contrary,  we  entertain  no  doubt  but 
that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  was  competent  to  make  it; 
and  that  each  division  of  the  Church  under  the  separate  organiza- 
tion is  just  as  legitimate  and  can  claim  as  high  a  sanction,  eccle- 
siastical and  temporal,  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  first 
founded  in  the  United  States. 

As  respects  the  relation  of  changing  the  Sixth  Restrict- 
ive Article,  the  decision  said  the  plan  of  separation 
''admits  the  right  of  the  Church  South  to  its  share  of 
the  common  property,  in  case  of  a  separation,  and  pro- 
vides for  a  partition  of  it  among  the  two  divisions,  upon 
just  and  equitable  principles;  but  regarding  the  Sixth 
Restrictive  Article  as  a  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the 
General  Conference,  as  it  respected  a  division  of  the 
property  in  the  Book  Concern,  provision  is  made  to  obtain 
a  removal  of  it.  The  removal  of  this  limitation  is  not  a 
condition  to  the  right  of  the  Church  South  to  its  share 
of  the  property,  but  is  a  step  taken  in  order  to  enable  the 
General  Conference  to  complete  the  partition  of  the 
property." 

The  Court  then  said  that  "nothing  short  of  an  agree- 
ment or  stipulation  of  the  Church  South  to  give  up  their 
share  of  it  could  preclude  the  assertion  of  their  right; 
and  it  is  quite  clear  no  such  agreement  or  stipulation  is 
found  in  the  Plan  of  Separation." 

The  conclusion  of  the  decision  is: 

Without  pursuing  the  case  any  farther,  our  conclusion  is  that 
the  complainants  and  those  they  represent  are  entitled  to  their 


THE  BISECTION  OF  THE  CHURCH 


285 


share  of  the  property  in  this  Book  Concern;  and  the  proper 
decree  will  be  entered  to  carry  this  decision  into  effect. 

This  decree  being  final  the  Court  ordered  a  pro  rata 
division. 

In  accordance  with  this  decree,  the  Agents  at  New  York 
and  Cincinnati  paid  the  representatives  of  the  Church 
South  1270.000  in  cash,  and  transferred  to  that  Church 
presses  and  papers  belonging  to  the  Church  in  the  South, 
and  all  debts  due  within  the  bounds  of  the  Southern 
Conferences. 


CHAPTER  XXXV 


Final  Change  in  the  Discipline  in  Regard  to  Slavery 

Under  all  these  circumstances  extreme  bitterness  was 
developed  on  both  sides. 

If  the  fierceness  of  the  controversy  could  be  said  to  have 
subsided  for  a  time,  it  was  only  by  comparison,  for  many 
Methodists  in  Delaware  and  Maryland  and  some  in  Vir- 
ginia along  the  border,  adhered  to  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  they  were  largely  in  the  Philadelphia, 
Baltimore,  and  Ohio  Conferences.  It  had  been  recognized 
that  non-slaveholding  was  not  a  term  of  membership, 
but  those  members  who  had  slaves  did  not  expect  to  be 
disturbed  so  long  as  they  governed  their  slaves  in  a  spirit 
of  Christian  humanity.  A  large  party,  however,  would 
not  consent  to  what  they  considered  "temporizing." 

Bond,  editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate ;  Elliott,  editor 
of  the  Western  Christian  Advocate,  and  Clark,  editor 
of  the  Ladies'  Repository,  maintained  the  technical  right 
of  slaveholders  to  a  place  in  the  Church;  but  Zion's 
Herald  (Daniel  Wise,  editor)  the  Northern  Christian 
Advocate,  edited  by  William  Hosmer,  and  James  V.  Wat- 
son, editor  of  the  Northwestern,  condemned  all  slavehold- 
ing. 

During  the  period  between  1852  and  18.56  various  reso- 
lutions asking  a  change  in  the  general  rule  of  slavery 
were  laid  before  all  the  Annual  Conferences  for  their 
concurrence,  but  none  of  them  received  the  constitutional 
majority. 

The  Bishops,  referring  to  this  fact,  observed  in  their 
Address  to  General  Conference  of  1856: 

We  are  aware  that  it  is  difficult  to  separate  the  consideration 
of  the  desirableness  of  any  measure  from  its  constitutionality, 
286 


CHANGE  IN  DISCIPLINE  IN  REGARD  TO  SLAVERY  287 


and  especially  so  where  deep  feeling  on  the  subject  may  exist. 
Yet  we  think  it  to  be  our  duty  to  express  our  strong  doubts 
whether,  in  view  of  the  restricted  powers  of  a  delegated  General 
Conference,  any  measure  equivalent  to  a  change  in  the  General 
Rules  can  be  constitutionally  adopted  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  Annual  Conferences.' 

This  was  signed  by  Bishops  Waugh,  Morris,  Janes, 
Scott,  Simpson,  Baker,  and  Ames.  The  action  of  that 
Conference  proposed  no  change  in  the  Constitution,  nor 
any  mandatory  rule. 

For  a  long  time  the  issue  turned  on  whether  it  would  be 
within  the  prerogative  of  the  General  Conference  to  pass 
a  simple  rule  of  discipline  by  which  all  slaveholders  would 
be  liable  to  expulsion ;  and  the  number  of  those  who  held 
that  view  increased  rapidly.  Harris,  in  his  series  of 
articles  which  finally  constituted  a  small  work  entitled 
Powers  of  the  General  Conference,  concludes  that  the 
General  Conference  had  power  to  refuse  to  tolerate 
slavery  any  longer.  Stevens  disputed  this  proposition, 
and  was  replied  to  by  D.  D.  Whedon ;  but  while  the  latter 
held  that  the  constitutionality  of  such  a  statute  might 
be  maintained,  he  preferred  the  slow  but  sure  constitu- 
tional process. 

A  Ministers'  and  Laymen's  Union  was  established  at 
the  session  of  the  New  York  Conference  in  1859,  to  pro- 
test against  the  proposed  change  in  relation  to  slavery. 
The  New  York  East  Conference — which,  besides  its  terri- 
tory in  New  York,  includes  the  larger  part  of  Connecti- 
cut— formed  an  Anti-Slavery  Society,  which  controverted 
vigorously  the  views  and  intents  of  the  Ministers'  Union. 

Various  forms  for  changing  the  General  Rule  on  slavery 
were  submitted  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  The  measure 
proposed  by  the  Cincinnati  Conference  was  to  insert  in 
the  General  Rules  the  prohibition  of  "the  buying  or  sell- 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1856,  p.  199. 


288  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ing  of  men,  women,  or  children,  or  holding  them  with  the 
intention  of  using  them  as  slaves."  The  Providence  pro- 
posed "slaveholding,  or  buying  or  selling  men,  women, 
or  children  with  the  intention  to  enslave  them."  The 
Erie  desired  to  change  the  rule  so  as  to  read  "the  buying, 
selling,  holding,  or  transferring  of  any  human  being  to 
be  used  in  slavery."  These  all  failed  to  secure  the  consti- 
tutional "three  fourths  of  all  voting." 

At  the  General  Conference  of  1860  many  memorials 
were  presented  asking  that  "no  change  be  made  in  the 
Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery":  but  six  times  as 
many,  signed  by  more  than  ten  times  as  many  individuals, 
asked  that  "slavery  might  be  extirpated  from  the  Church." 
The  result  was  that  the  General  Conference  substituted 
in  place  of  the  chapter  on  slavery  which  had  come  down 
from  1780  the  following: 

We  believe  that  the  buying,  selling,  or  holding  of  human 
beings,  to  be  used  as  chattels,  is  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God 
and  nature,  and  inconsistent  with  the  Golden  Rule,  and  with 
the  Rule  in  our  Discii)line  which  requires  all  who  desire  to 
continue  among  us  to  "do  no  harm"  and  to  "avoid  evil  of  every 
kind."  We,  therefore,  affectionately  admonish  all  our  preachers 
and  people  to  keep  themselves  pure  from  this  great  evil,  and  to 
seek  its  extirpation  by  all  lawful  and  Christian  means. 

This  created  intense  excitement  among  several  Con- 
ferences; practical  rebellion  in  some,  and  in  others  threats 
of  dissolving  the  bonds  of  fellowship  with  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  In  the  Baltimore  Conference  Bishop 
Levi  Scott,  presiding,  refused  to  entertain  motions  relat- 
ing to  a  division  of  the  Church,  but  subsequently  allowed 
the  secretary  to  put  the  question  on  the  adoption  of  a 
similar  series  of  propositions.  After  he  resumed  the 
chair  he  ordered  a  paper  to  be  spread  on  the  Journal 
declaring  the  action  null  and  void  regarded  as  Conference 
action.  One  hundred  and  thirty-two  of  the  one  hundred 
and  seventy-one  members  of  the  Conference  were  present, 


CHANGE  IN  DISCIPLINE  IN  REGARD  TO  SLAVERY  289 


and  eighty-three  voted  for  immediate  separation.  Sixty- 
six  ministers  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  withdrew ;  and 
in  1863  the  record  of  this  Conference  showed  a  decrease 
of  21,065  members. 

The  General  Conference  of  1864  adopted  the  follow- 
ing resolutions,  by  a  vote  of  207  to  9 : 

That  -we  recommend  the  amendment  of  the  general  rule  on 
slavery  so  that  it  shall  read,  "Slaveholding,  buying,  or  selling 
slaves." 

That  we  recommend  the  suspension  of  the  Fourth  Restrictive 
Rule  for  the  purpose  set  forth  in  the  foregoing  resolution. 

The  Bishops  were  instructed  to  submit  these  resolu- 
tions to  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  to  insert  the  new 
rule  in  subsequent  editions  of  the  Discipline  if  the  requi- 
site number  of  votes  were  obtained. 

From  1808  the  General  Kule  had  been,  "The  buying 
and  selling  of  men,  women,  or  children  with  an  intention 
to  enslave  them."  The  change  made  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1864,  and  the  subsequent  action  of  the  Annual 
Conferences  reduced  the  rule  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
if  for  the  first  time  absolutely  prohibitive  of  slavery. 

But  as  slavery  had  been  abolished  throughout  the  land 
by  the  Civil  War,  there  has  never  been  in  this  country 
an  opportunity  to  apply  the  rule,  but  in  the  world-wide 
missionary  operations  of  the  Church  it  is  quite  within  the 
bounds  of  possibility  that  it  may  at  some  period  come 
into  use. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI 


Lay  Delegation 

The  admission  of  laymen  as  delegates  to  the  General 
Conference  was  one  of  the  principal  demands  of  those 
Methodists  who  were  expelled,  or  withdrew,  from  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1821  and  the  years  imme- 
diately succeeding.  In  1830  they  established  the  Method- 
ist Protestant  Church. 

Petitions  and  memorials  for  lay  representation  were 
sent  to  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  which  referred 
them  to  a  committee  in  connection  with  two  other  sub- 
jects, "A  Moderate  Episcopacy"  and  "Election  of  Presid- 
ing Elders  in  the  Annual  Conferences." 

THE  SENTIMENT  IN  1840 

The  report  of  this  committee  disposed  of  all  very  curtly. 
It  charged  that  the  petitions  and  memorials  had  "been 
obtained  by  a  concerted  operation,  under  the  direction  of 
some  single  intellect";  that  they  were  "the  result  of 
agitation  and  not  of  original  dissatisfaction  on  the  part 
of  most  of  the  persons  signing  these  petitions  and  memo- 
rials." It  said,  further,  that  "memorials  and  peti- 
tions, regarding  not  individual  grievances,  but  general 
interests,  are  entitled  to  no  other  consideration  than  that 
to  which  they  are  entitled  as  mere  arguments  in  favor 
of  the  courses  indicated,"  and  continued :  "The  committee 
refer  to  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  of  1828, 
for  the  light  in  which  the  election  of  presiding  elders  by 
the  Annual  Conferences,  and  a  lay  delegation  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  was  then  viewed,  and  the  decision  which 
was  made  by  the  Church  on  these  subjects."  The  com- 
290 


LAY  DELEGATION 


291 


mittee  therefore  declared  that  it  could  "do  no  other  than 
submit  the  following  resolution,  viz." : 

That  It  is  not  expedient  to  change  the  form  of  our  Church 
government  in  any  of  the  matters  suggested  in  the  petitions 
and  memorials  which  have  been  under  the  consideration  of  the 
committee.' 

In  1844  and  1848  there  were  more  intricate  problems  to 
solve,  and  the  subject  of  lay  delegation  was  not  introduced. 

THE  ATTITUDE  IN  1852-56 

A  convention  in  favor  of  lay  representation  was  held 
in  Philadelphia  in  March,  1852 ;  and  in  May  a  conference 
of  laymen  also  met  in  that  city  in  opposition  to  the  move- 
ment. Addresses  from  these  contradicting  bodies  were 
sent  to  the  General  Conference  of  1852,  as  were  both 
memorials  and  petitions  from  various  parts  of  the  Church. 
The  latter  were  referred  to  a  special  committee.  Its 
report  stated  that  "while  we  highly  appreciate  the  spirit 
which  characterizes  the  movements  of  those  brethren  who 
advocate  a  change,  and  while  we  most  ardently  desire 
the  full  and  cordial  cooperation  of  the  laity  and  ministry 
in  all  our  enterprises,  still  we  are  fully  convinced  that 
the  proposed  change  would  not  be  advantageous  to  the 
interests  of  the  Church."  The  report  concluded :  "Your 
committee  have  also  ascertained  .  .  .  that  there  is  a 
strong  opposition  in  the  great  mass  of  membership  to  the 
proposed  change.  They  therefore  present  the  following 
resolution : 

"That  it  is  inexpedient  so  to  alter  the  economy  of  the  Church 
as  to  introduce  lay  delegation  into  the  General  and  Annual 
Conferences. "- 

This  committee  consisted  of  a  large  number  of  very 
able  men,  among  them  Osmon  C.  Baker,  Edward  R.  Ames, 

•General  Conference  Journal,  1840,  vol.  ii,  pp.  74,  75. 
nbid..  1852.  p.  148. 


292  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Edward  Thomson,  and  Abel  Stevens.  After  the  debate 
the  ayes  and  nays  were  called,  with  the  result  of  171  for 
and  3  against  the  report.  Matthew  Simpson  was  chair- 
man of  the  committee;  he,  as  well  as  Baker  and  Ames, 
had  already  been  elected  to  the  episcopacy,  but  had  not 
been  ordained.  They  voted  in  favor  of  the  report,  as  did 
John  McClintock  and  Edward  Thomson. 

After  having  been  much  discussed  during  the  quad- 
rennium,  the  subject  appeared  again  in  the  Conference  of 
1856  and  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Itineracy, 
which  placed  it  in  the  hands  of  a  special  committee  of 
five.  The  latter  reported  that  they  had  received  many 
petitions  and  memorials  for  and  against,  and  added : 

Thougli  some  wise  and  good  men  desire  the  proposed  change, 
the  great  body  of  the  Church  do  not  desire  it.  The  subject  has 
been  discussed  repeatedly  in  different  periods  of  our  history;  it 
was  largely  discussed  four  years  since  [1852],  and  the  attention 
of  our  entire  membership  was  called  to  the  subject  by  circulars, 
newspaper  discussions,  and  resolutions  passed  by  conventions. 
Since  then  the  matter  has  died  away.  .  .  .  For  these  reasons  .  .  . 
we  are  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  the  change  ...  is  de- 
manded neither  by  the  exigencies  of  the  case  nor  by  the  voice 
of  the  Church;  and  therefore  we  recommend  the  passage  of  the 
following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  any  change  in  our  economy  relating  to  the 
Constitution  of  our  General  and  Annual  Conferences  is  inex- 
pedient at  the  present  time."^ 

The  addition  of  the  words  "present  time"  inspired  hope 
in  the  hearts  of  the  optimists. 

FIRST  "standing  COMMITTEE"  ON  LAY  REPRESENTATION 

The  year  1860:  in  this  Conference  for  the  first  time  a 
"Standing  Committee"  on  Lay  Delegation  was  established. 
During  the  previous  four  years  the  East  Genesee  and 
Oregon  Conferences  had  sent  a  resolution  to  the  other 

•General  Oooference  Journal,  1856,  pp.  290.  291. 


LAY  DELEGATION 


293 


Annual  Conferences  for  their  votes.  The  committee  pre- 
sented both  a  majority  and  minority  report.  The  former 
recoi"ds  that  "some  of  the  Annual  Conferences  took  no 
action  upon  either  the  East  Genesee  or  Oregon  resolu- 
tions upon  this  subject;  but  so  far  as  we  have  been  able 
to  get  at  the  facts  in  the  ease,  it  appears  that  a  large 
majority  voted  against  these  rules."  Also  that  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-seven  Quarterly  Conferences  voted,  but 
"according  to  the  best  judgment  of  the  committee,"  the 
number  of  votes  for  and  against  lay  delegation,  was 
"about  equal."  They  noted  that  "no  distinct  plan  for 
lay  delegation  has  been  before  the  Church,  and  that 
"the  great  body  of  our  people  have  not  spoken  on  this 
subject."  However,  they  observed,  that  while  it  was 
necessary  in  the  early  days  of  the  Church  that  the 
government  thereof  should  fall  upon  the  ministry,  since 
that  period  it  had  greatly  increased  in  members,  wealth, 
and  intelligence;  they  therefore  submitted  a  plan  for 
lay  delegation  which  included  the  proposition  that  the 
number  of  lay  and  clerical  delegates  should  be  equal, 
but  that  the  laity  should  not  be  allowed  to  sit  on  the 
trial  of  a  Bishop  or  on  the  appeal  of  ministers.  Ten 
members  were  to  have  the  power  to  order  a  separation 
of  the  lay  and  clerical  delegates  in  voting,  but  in  the 
case  of  the  election  of  General  Conference  officers  the 
vote  should  be  by  joint  ballot.* 

The  minority  reported  to  the  efifect  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  lay  delegation  "is  an  organic  change  of  great 
magnitude,  which  has  hitherto  been  considered  by  the 
best  minds  of  the  Church,  in  the  laity  and  the  ministry, 
as  of  doubtful  and  dangerous  expediency."  Therefore 
they  offered  the  resolution  that  "the  change  should  not 
be  attempted,  if  at  all,  without  great  caution  and  mature 
consideration,  and  then  only  after  a  clear  and  full  expres- 

■General  Conference  Journal.  1860,  pp.  446,  447. 


294  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


sion  of  the  laity  and  the  constitutional  concurrence  of 
the  ministry,"  and  a  second  resolution  which  deemed  it 
''inexpedient  to  inaugurate  any  plan  at  present  that 
would  change  the  constitution  of  either  the  General  or 
Annual  Conferences."^ 

Many  amendments  and  substitutes  were  proposed  but 
were  set  aside,  until  Davis  W.  Clark,  afterward  Bishop, 
moved  a  substitute  for  all  that  was  before  the  body. 
After  debating  for  some  time,  the  Conference  passed  a 
motion  "That  the  Conference  now  proceed  to  vote  on  the 
subject  of  lay  delegation  without  further  debate,  pro- 
vided this  resolution  shall  not  prevent  the  offering  of 
amendments  and  substitutes  or  the  making  of  legitimate 
motions;  but  if  any  such  be  offered  or  made,  they  shall 
be  voted  on  without  debate."^ 

THE  COMMITTEE  OF  THREE 

After  several  other  motions,  and  the  withdrawal  of 
some,  another  resolution  was  adopted,  that  "the  Chair 
appoint  three  members,  to  whom  the  whole  subject  shall 
be  recommitted,  to  adjust  this  matter  and  report  at 
three  o'clock.  Davis  W.  Clark  presented  the  report  of 
the  committee  of  three  and  Morris  D'C.  Crawford  moved 
that  it  be  adopted.    It  was  as  follows: 

Resolved,  1.  That  we,  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  General  Conference 
assembled,  hereby  approve  of  the  introduction  of  lay  representa- 
tion into  this  body  when  it  shall  be  ascertaiaed  that  the  Church 
desires  it. 

Resolved,  2.  That  all  our  preachers  in  charge,  stationed 
within  the  United  States  and  Territories,  be  and  they  are  hereby 
required  to  lay  the  subject  of  lay  representation  in  the  General 
Conference  before  the  male  members  over  twenty-one  years  of 
age,  and  in  full  connection  in  their  several  charges,  at  a  meet- 
ing duly  notified  on  two  successive  Sabbaths,  said  meetings  to 

•General  Conference  Journal,  1860,  p.  447. 
2Ibid.,  1860,  p.  280. 


LAY  DELEGATION 


295 


be  held  at  some  convenient  period  between  the  sessions  of  the 
respective  Annual  Conferences  in  1861  and  1862,  and  the  results 
to  be  certified  to  the  Annual  Conference  next  succeeding  the 
taking  of  the  vote  by  the  preacher  in  charge,  specifying  the 
number  voting  for  and  the  number  voting  against  lay  representa- 
tion, and  be  entered  upon  the  Journals;  and  that  each  Annual 
Conference  shall,  through  its  secretary,  furnish  to  the  presiding 
Bishop  a  certified  copy  of  the  result.  The  form  and  manner  of 
presenting  the  vote  to  the  male  members  of  the  Church  shall 
be  by  ballot,  and  as  follows:  "For  Lay  Representation,"  or 
"Against  Lay  Representation." 

Resolved,  3.  That  the  Bishops  be  and  are  hereby  instructed 
to  lay  the  same  question  and  in  the  same  form  before  the  Annual 
Conferences  at  their  sessions  in  1862;  and  that  each  Annual 
Conference,  through  its  secretary,  shall  furnish  the  presiding 
Bishop  with  a  certified  copy  of  the  result. 

Resolved,  4.  That  the  Bishops  be  requested  to  report  the 
results  of  these  several  votes  to  the  General  Conference  at  its 
next  session.* 

CONVENTION  OF  LAYMEN  PRESENT  AN  ADDRESS 

The  General  Conference  of  1864  sat  in  Philadelphia. 
On  May  19  the  order  of  business  was  suspended  to  receive 
a  deputation  from  a  convention  of  lavmen  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  which  had  just  been  held  in  the 
city,  and  Bishop  Baker,  who  was  presiding,  introduced 
the  following  gentlemen  to  the  Conference:  ex-Governor 
Joseph  A.  Wright,  of  Indiana;  Governor  Cannon,  of 
Delaware;  Professor  James  Strong;  Charles  C.  North 
and  John  Elliott,  of  New  York;  Cornelius  Walsh,  of  New 
Jersey;  Thomas  Kneil,  of  Massachusetts;  George  C. 
Cooke,  of  Illinois ;  and  Oliver  Hoyt,  of  Connecticut. 

Professor  Strong  read  an  address,  which  pointed  out 
imperfections  and  irregularities  in  presenting  the  sub- 
ject to  the  people.  He  maintained  that  "the  preachers 
should  have  been  required  to  notify  the  people  by  reading 
the  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  pas- 

'General  Conference  Journal  1860,  p.  290. 


296  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

sage  of  the  pastoral  address  which  touches  upon  lay  dele- 
gations, from  their  pulpits,  and  not  by  verbal  statement; 
and  the  General  Conference  papers  should  have  been 
directed  to  publish  the  same  resolutions  conspicuously  a 
certain  number  of  times  during  the  period  appointed  for 
the  taking  of  the  vote." 

The  address  charged  that  many  preachers  "neglected 
or  wholly  refused  to  present  the  subject  to  their  congre- 
gations"; in  other  cases  "the  people  were  requested  to 
give  their  judgment  upon  the  admission  of  laymen  to 
the  Annual  Conferences  as  well  as  the  General  Confer- 
ence"; that  circuits,  by  the  ruling  of  a  presiding  elder, 
in  various  places  were  compelled  to  vote  at  one  time  and 
place. 

The  Professor  showed  that  the  breaking  out  of  the  war, 
then  raging,  had  "withdrawn  the  attention  of  mem- 
bers from  the  subject."  Further,  that  in  the  Conferences 
east  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains,  embracing  the  New 
England  States,  Central  States,  and  Eastern  border, 
there  had  been  cast  a  majority  of  over  one  thousand  for 
lay  delegation.  The  address  met  the  argument  of  some, 
by  prophesying  that  the  laity  will  be  found  to  be  "more 
prone  to  resist  than  to  encourage  innovation,"  and  that 
they  will  "consent  with  reluctance  to  the  removal  of 
old  landmarks." 

THE  POPULAR  WILL  DIVIDED 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Lay  Delegation  states 
that  the  Conference  had  received  sundry  petitions,  some 
in  favor  of  lay  delegation;  others  against  it;  a  third 
class  asking  that  the  subject  be  submitted  again  to  popu- 
lar vote,  and  a  fourth  protesting  against  resubmitting 
the  question.  The  committee  said:  "We  have  also  been 
favored  with  the  views  and  arguments  of  the  committee 
of  the  Lay  Convention,  which,  we  are  happy  to  say,  were 


LAY  DELEGATION 


297 


uttered  in  the  most  kindly  and  loyal  spirit."  The  fol- 
lowing preamble  and  resolutions  were  then  submitted: 

Whereas,  The  General  Conference,  at  its  last  session  de- 
clared its  approval  of  the  introduction  of  lay  delegation  into 
this  body  when  it  shall  be  ascertained  that  the  Church  desires 
it;  provided  for  submitting  the  question  to  the  male  members 
over  twenty-one  years  of  age,  in  full  connection,  in  all  our 
charges;  instructed  the  Bishops  to  lay  the  question  before  the 
Annual  Conferences  at  their  session  in  the  year  1862,  and  re- 
quested them  to  report  to  this  body  the  results  of  these  several 
votes;  and. 

Whereas,  The  Bishops  reported  the  vote  as  follows,  namely, 
Of  the  ministers  there  were  1,338  votes  for,  and  3,069  against; 
of  the  male  members,  28,884  for,  and  47,855  against;  showing 
a  majority  against  lay  representation  in  the  General  Conference 
of  1,731  ministers  and  18,971  male  members;  therefore. 

Resolved,  1.  That,  while  we  reaffirm  our  approval  of  lay 
representation  in  the  General  Conference  whenever  it  shall  be 
ascertained  that  the  Church  desires  it,  we  see  no  such  declara- 
tion of  the  popular  will  as  to  justify  us  in  taking  advanced 
action  in  relation  to  it. 

Resolved,  2.  That  we  are  at  all  times  ready  to  receive  peti- 
tions and  memorials  from  our  people  on  this  subject,  and  to 
consider  them  most  respectfully. 

(Signed)  Edward  Thomson,  Chairman, 
Edward  G.  Andrews,  Secretary. 

Philadelphia,  May  23,  1864.^ 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1864,  pp.  412,  413. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII 


Lay  Delegation  (Continued) 

The  General  Conference  of  18G8  began  its  work  on 
May  1,  in  Cliicago.  Several  serious  and  unusual  prob- 
lems were  before  it,  but  none  so  momentous  as  lay  rep- 
resentation. The  numbers  of  petitions  and  memorials 
had  greatly  increased.  Many  influential  members  who 
had  not  been  interested  in  the  question  became  aroused 
to  the  fact  that  ''no  other  great  ecclesiastical  body  of  the 
New  World,  except  the  Romanists,  had  retained  thus  far 
an  exclusively  clerical  system  of  government.  Our  legis- 
lative power,  at  least,  was  entirely  clerical,  and  our 
executive  power  was  substantially  so."^ 

DEPUTATIONS  FOK  AND  AGAINST  PEESENTED 

On  May  18,  a  delegation  of  eminent  laymen  was  intro- 
duced to  the  Conference  by  the  president,  after  which 
they  read  their  address,  which  was  ordered  to  be  printed. 
Among  them  were  General  Clinton  B.  Fisk,  the  presi- 
dent of  the  convention  sending  the  deputation ;  Isaac 
Rich,  principal  founder  of  Boston  University;  Governor 
William  Claflin,  of  Massachusetts;  Oliver  Hoyt;  Amos 
Shinkle,  of  Covington,  Kentucky;  John  Owen,  of  Detroit; 
F.  H.  Root,  of  Buffalo;  John  Evans,  of  Colorado;  and 
Andrew  V.  Stout,  of  New  York. 

Later  a  deputation  of  laymen  representing  a  conven- 
tion of  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at 
that  time  in  Chicago,  was  received  and  submitted  an 
address  protesting  against  the  introducing  of  lay  delega- 
tion and  assuring  them  that  it  doubted  the  constitutional 

lAbel  Stevens,  Supplementary  History  of  American  Methodism,  p.  56. 
298 


LAY  DELEGATION 


299 


right  of  the  hody  to  make  the  proposed  change  without 
previously  altering  the  Restrictive  Rule.  Among  these 
were  George  .1.  Hamilton,  a  prominent  layman  of  New- 
York  city ;  Samuel  Preston,  of  Vermont ;  and  William  H. 
Whitehead,  of  Chicago. 

FOR  LAY  DELEGATION 

The  laymen's  address  in  favor  of  representation  is  a 
remarkable  i)roduction.  The  substance  of  it  covers  in 
some  degree  every  atfirmative  element.  The  petitioners 
to  the  body  in  number  were  ten  for  representation  to 
one  against.  But  five  Conferences  adopted  adverse  reso- 
lutions. Opportunity  had  been  afforded  by  the  free  cir- 
culation in  the  form  of  petitions  against  lay  delegation 
"for  a  full  expression  of  whatever  opposition  there  may 
be  to  it  in  the  Church."  During  the  previous  four  years 
the  Methodist  press,  with  perhaps  a  single  exception,  had 
cordially  supported  the  claims  of  the  laity  to  a  repre- 
sentation.   The  address  continues: 

You  have  recently  extended  the  duration  of  the  pastoral  term; 
you  have  acquired  the  assent  of  the  Annual  Conferences  to  the 
sale  of  Church  property,  and  you  have  inserted  among  the  con- 
ditions of  reception  into  full  membership  a  pledge  to  "support 
the  gospel  and  the  various  benevolent  enterprises  of  the  Church," 
all  without  first  ascertaining  the  wishes  of  the  laity  upon  any 
one  of  these  important  modifications  of  our  Discipline.  .  .  . 
Would  it  not  be  better,  fathers  and  brethren,  that  you  and  we 
should  sit  and  deliberate  upon  these  counectional  interests  of 
Methodism  together? 

Many  points  of  equal  j)ertinency  were  presented  in  the 
very  essence  of  simplicity: 

Our  fathers,  when,  forty  years  ago,  they  declined  to  admit  lay 
delegates  to  the  General  Conference,  at  the  same  time  dis- 
claimed for  the  Conference  the  possession  of  any  legislative 
power  whatever.  Since  then  the  General  Conference  has  been 
compelled  from  the  necessities  of  its  position,  to  exercise  all  the 


300  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


legislative  authority  known  to  any  ecclesiastical  assembly.  .  .  . 
Fathers  and  brethren,  receive  us.  You  and  we  are  both  required 
to  make  the  complete  Church.  .  .  .  Together  we  form  one  living 
body  in  Christ,  our  Head;  we  cannot,  we  must  not,  be  dissevered 
from  each  other. 

The  names  signed  to  that  address  contained  statesmen 
and  philanthropists,  and,  what  is  better,  all  known  to  be 
devoted  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

AGAINST 

The  laymen's  address  against  representation  was 
equally  candid : 

We  entirely  disagree  with  these,  our  brethren,  in  their  con- 
struction of  the  action  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  re- 
specting lay  delegation.  "We  have,  indeed,  observed  a  great 
unanimity  in  the  action  of  those  bodies  respecting  the  proposi- 
tion to  modify  our  Church  polity  as  to  admit  laymen  to  seats 
in  the  Conferences;  but  in  all  cases  we  have  understood  such 
approval  to  have  been  qualified — which  is  done  explicitly  in 
most  cases — and  in  several  instances  an  unqualified  disapproval 
has  been  expressed.  .  .  .  Satisfied  with  the  form  of  Church 
government  transmitted  to  us  by  our  fathers,  we  have  avoided 
all  partisan  agitation  of  the  subject.  .  .  .  The  laity  of  our  Church 
have  been  accustomed  to  confide  in  the  ministry,  and  to  feel 
that  in  its  godly  conservatism  there  is  safety  against  all  dangers 
from  needless  innovations.  ...  As  our  Church  is  now  governed 
there  is  a  most  happy  separation  of  the  spiritual  and  secular 
offices  of  the  body.  .  .  the  laity  are  called  upon  to  trust  the 
ministry  in  the  administration  of  spiritual  offices,  so  the  min- 
istry is  compelled  to  trust  the  laity  in  secular  and  pecuniary 
offices.  .  .  .  We  are  satisfied  that  you  have  not  the  constitutional 
right  to  make  the  proposed  change  without  going  through  the 
constitutional  process  of  changing  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule, 
and  we  should  look  upon  the  attempt  to  do  so  with  alarm. 

The  men  that  signed  that  address,  though  most  of  them 
not  as  well  known  as  the  others,  were  stanch  and  true. 

On  May  22,  the  majority  and  minority  reports  were 
presented.    The  majority,  in  substance,  held  that  the 


LAY  DELEGATION 


301 


Conference  had  the  power,  and  should  then  and  there  exer- 
cise it,  to  enact  a  statute  providing  for  the  admission  of 
laymen.  The  minority  held  that  the  Second  Restrictive 
Rule  must  be  changed  before  such  a  statute  could  be 
constitutionally  enacted. 

On  Wednesday,  May  27,  E.  O.  Haven,  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Lay  Representation,  delivered  an 
address,  in  which  he  explained  the  report  and  described 
the  route  by  which  it  had  been  reached.  Immediately 
afterward  S.  M.  Merrill,  chairman  of  the  minority  of  the 
Committee  on  Lay  Representation,  made  an  address 
which  elicited  profound  attention.  His  fundamental 
principles  were  that: 

"The  change  proposed  cannot  be  made  without  a  change 
of  the  Restrictive  Rule,"  and  "That  the  change  of  the 
Restrictive  Rule,  according  to  the  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution, will  not  meet  the  end  proposed  by  the  report  of 
the  majority."  He  declared  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
report  of  the  majority  is  that  every  portion  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Church  is  liable  to  be  changed,  and  may 
be  changed,  by  a  mere  majority  vote,  except  the  Restric- 
tive Rules.  He  ai'gued  that  the  General  Conference  was 
"a  mere  delegated  body  and  had  no  being  only  during  its 
session,  and  as  soon  as  this  body  shall  adjourn  sine  die 
there  will  be  no  General  Conference."  He  asserted  also 
that  the  Annual  Conferences  have  "a  continuous  exist- 
ence, but  the  General  Conference  has  not."  After  speak- 
ing at  great  length,  he  was  permitted  to  resume  in  the 
afternoon  session.  Finally  he  said  that  he  claimed  to  be 
"a  better  friend  to  the  laity  than  any  man  whose  opinions 
are  fully  developed  in  that  majority  report,"  and  ex- 
plained that  he  had  "no  war  to  make  upon  lay  representa- 
tion per  se." 

Peter  Cartwright  declared  that  he  was  opposed  to  any 
change  in  this  matter  in  any  shape,  form,  or  manner,  and 


302  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

closed  his  speech  by  these  words :  "These  eccentric  gentle- 
men, if  they  want  lay  delegation,  I  would  advise  them  to 
resuscitate  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  for  they 
have  got  it  already;  but  let  your  own  mother  alone. 
Do  not  stab  her  to  the  vitals." 

Gilbert  Haven  said  that  "we  are  told  that  no  power 
exists  to  introduce  lay  representation";  "That  there  is 
no  reason  for  the  demand";  "That  it  is  already  intro- 
duced"; "That  its  introduction  will  dispossess  the  min- 
istry of  their  prerogatives  and  bring  dishonor  and 
disaster  upon  the  Church."  He  controverted  those 
propositions. 

C.  Munger,  of  Maine,  delivered  an  able  argument  against 
lay  representation,  and  was  followed  by  John  McClin- 
tock.  He  argued  against  the  position  of  Merrill,  support- 
ing himself  by  passages  from  L.  L.  Hamline  and  William 
L.  Harris. 

At  last  Merrill  said  that  he  would  go  as  far  as  to  say 
that  "when  the  laity  desire  it,  and  it  shall  be  fully  con- 
stitutional, I  am  willing  for  my  part  to  sacrifice  some- 
what of  my  position,  and  a  great  deal  of  it." 

Bishop  Ames  presented  a  paper  which  was  not  accepted. 

Bishop  Clark  said  "it  might  appear  to  some  from  the 
way  in  which  the  paper  comes  before  the  Conference  that 
it  came  from  the  Board  of  Bishops."  But  he  personally 
did  not  accept  it. 

Bishop  Ames  said  it  was  "very  far  from  his  intention 
in  presenting  this  paper  to  compromise  Bishop  Clark 
or  any  of  his  colleagues  in  any  way." 

Daniel  Curry  said,  "I  am  ready  for  one  to  do  this — to 
waive  everything  but  the  constitutional  question." 

THE   "committee  OF  CONFERENCE" 

Lay  representation  was  discussed  during  the  greater 
part  of  May  27  and  28;  and,  there  being  a  great  disso- 


LAY  DELEGATION 


303 


nance  of  thinking  and  speaking,  a  "Committee  of  Con- 
ference" was  appointed.  This  consisted  of  E.  O.  Haven, 
D.  Curry,  J.  B.  Dobbins,  K.  H.  Foster,  E.  S.  Fuller, 
J.  T.  Peck,  J.  McClintock,  S.  M.  Merrill,  W.  H.  Hunter, 
and  C.  Munger. 

This  committee  reported  on  the  morning  of  the  29th; 
thirty-three  motions,  some  strictly  parliamentary  and 
others  additions  and  excisions,  were  voted  upon  before 
the  report  was  adopted.  The  first  resolution  declares : 

Whereas,  The  General  Conference  of  1860  expressed  its  will- 
ingness to  admit  lay  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  when- 
ever the  people  should  desire  it;  and, 

Whereas,  The  General  Conference  of  1864  concurred  in  that 
action;  therefore, 

Resolved,  That  we  also  concur  in  the  same  and  recommend 
the  following  plan  to  the  godly  consideration  of  our  ministers 
and  people. 

The  second  resolution  provided  for  a  "general  election," 
"at  which  all  members  in  full  connection,  and  not  less 
than  twenty-one  years  of  age,  shall  be  invited  to  vote  by 
ballot  for  lay  delegation  or  against."  The  details  of  the 
management  of  the  election  were  also  given.  * 

The  third  and  last  resolution  was: 

That  should  a  majority  of  votes  cast  by  the  people  be  in  favor 
of  lay  delegation,  and  should  three  fourths  of  all  the  members 
of  the  Annual  Conference  present  and  voting  thereon  vote  in 
favor  of  the  above  proposed  change  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church,  then  the  General  Conference  meeting  in  1872,  by  the 
requisite  two-thirds  vote,  can  complete  the  change,  and  lay 
delegates  previously  elected  may  then  be  admitted.^ 

Marvelous  was  the  unanimity  with  which  this  report 
was  carried.   There  were  only  three  nays. 

VIEWS  OP  FOUR  EMINENT  METHODISTS 

During  the  next  quadrennium  the  subject  was  much 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1868.  pp.  275-277. 


304  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

discussed.  After  the  vote  was  taken  by  the  laity,  Daniel 
Curry,  editor  of  The  Christian  Advocate,  who  had  voted 
with  the  majority  on  the  final  action  in  the  General  Con- 
ference in  1868,  opposed  ministerial  confirmation  on  the 
ground  that  not  a  sufficient  number  of  the  laity  had  voted 
for  the  change.  He  buttressed  his  argument  by  affirm- 
ing that  all  who  did  not  vote  were  to  be  regarded  as 
against  the  change.  Bishop  Simpson  subsequent  to  his 
election  to  the  episcopacy  has  advocated  at  all  times  the 
introduction  of  lay  delegation;  and  Bishops  Ames  and 
Janes,  toward  the  close  of  the  ministerial  voting,  becom- 
ing convinced  that  the  enterprises  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  were  so  lai'ge,  and  the  possibilities  of 
irritation,  animosity,  and  division  connected  with  them 
so  apparent,  that  the  business  sense  and  experience  of 
laymen,  which  for  some  3-ears  had  been  desirable  had 
now  become  indispensable,  threw  their  influence  in  favor 
of  the  change  of  the  Constitution.  One  of  the  strongest 
reasons  which  led  these  influential  Bishops  to  this  conclu- 
sion was  the  Book  Concern  controversy,  in  which  they 
had  sat  as  cojudges  in  the  trial  of  the  junior  Agent  for 
various  parts  of  his  action  in  endeavoring  to  reform  the 
management  of  the  Book  Concern. 

THE  DECISIVE  VOTES 

The  vote  in  the  Annual  Conferences  was  as  follows: 
for  the  proposed  change,  4,915 ;  against,  1,597 ;  blank,  4 ; 
total,  6,510.  As  three  fourths  of  all  the  votes  cast  were 
required  to  alter  the  Rule,  a  change  of  thirty-three  votes 
would  have  defeated  the  project. 

This  vote  related  entirely  to  the  change  of  the  Second 
Restrictive  Rule  which  fixed  the  constituent  members  of 
the  General  Conference;  but  as  the  General  Conference 
of  1868  had  conditioned  its  action  upon  the  demonstra- 
tion of  the  desire  of  the  people,  in  order  to  admit  the 


LAY  DELEGATION 


301 


laymen  provisionally  elected  it  was  necessary  for  the 
Conference  of  1872  to  concur,  which  it  did  by  adopting 
by  a  vote  of  283  in  favor  and  6  against,  the  following 
resolution : 

Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  does  hereby  concur 
with  the  Annual  Conferences  in  changing  the  Second  Restrictive 
Rule,  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

"They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  ministerial  representa- 
tive for  every  fourteen  members  of  an  Annual  Conference,  nor 
allow  of  less  than  one  for  every  forty-five,  nor  more  than  two  lay 
delegates  for  any  Annual  Conference."' 

THE  PLAN 

This  effected  only  the  change  in  the  conditions  of  mem- 
bership. It  was  therefore  necessary  to  adopt  the  plan, 
which  had  been  definitely  recommended  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1868  to  the  "godly  consideration  of  our 
ministers  and  people."    The  record  in  the  Journal  is: 

The  first  item  of  the  resolution  [offered  by  J.  T.  Peck,  W.  L. 
Harris,  R.  S.  Foster,  G.  Haven,  and  T.  M.  Eddy]  was  therefore 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  252  to  36,  in  words  following,  viz.:  "Resolved, 
That  said  plan  is  hereby  ratified  and  adopted." 

By  this,  Part  II,  Chapter  I,  Section  1  of  the  Discipline 
was  altered  so  as  to  read : 

Answer,  1.  The  General  Conference  .shall  be  composed  of 
ministerial  and  lay  delegates.  The  ministerial  delegates  shall 
consist  of  one  member  for  every  thirty  members  of  each  Annual 
Conference,  to  be  appointed  by  seniority  or  choice,  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  such  Annual  Conference,  yet  so  that  such  representa- 
tives shall  have  traveled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years  from 
the  time  that  they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  Annual  Confer- 
ence, and  are  in  full  connection  at  the  time  of  holding  the  Con- 
ference. 

The  lay  delegates  shall  consist  of  two  laymen  for  each  Annual 
Conference,  except  such  Conferences  as  have  but  one  ministerial 
delegate,  which  Conferences  shall  be  entitled  to  one  lay  delegate 
each. 


•General  Conference  Journal,  1872,  p.  41. 


306  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


The  lay  delegates  shall  be  chosen  by  an  Electoral  Conference 
of  laymen,  which  shall  assemble  for  the  purpose  on  the  third 
day  of  the  session  of  the  Annual  Conference,  at  the  place  of  its 
meeting,  at  its  session  immediately  preceding  the  General  Con- 
ference. 

The  Electoral  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  layman 
from  each  circuit  or  station  within  the  bounds  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  and,  on  assembling,  the  Electoral  Conference  shall 
organize  by  electing  a  chairman  and  secretary  of  their  own 
number;  such  layman  to  be  chosen  by  the  last  Quarterly  Con- 
ference preceding  the  time  of  its  assembling:  Provided,  that  no 
layman  shall  be  chosen  a  delegate  either  to  the  Electoral  Con- 
ference or  to  the  General  Conference  who  shall  be  under  twenty- 
five  years  of  age,  or  who  shall  not  have  been  a  member  of  the 
Church  in  full  connection  for  the  five  consecutive  years  preceding 
the  elections. 

Answer,  3.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Conference  is  met 
it  shall  take  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number  of  ministerial  and 
lay  delegates  to  form  a  quorum  for  the  transaction  of  business. 

The  ministerial  and  lay  delegates  shall  sit  and  deliberate 
together  as  one  body,  but  they  shall  vote  separately  whenever 
such  separate  vote  shall  be  demanded  by  one  third  of  either 
order,  and  in  such  cases  the  concurrent  vote  of  both  orders  shall 
be  necessary  to  complete  an  action.' 

The  placing  of  the  plan  in  the  chapter  on  the  General 
Conference  was  not  constitutional,  as  it  had  not  been 
voted  upon  by  the  Annual  Conferences.^  But  the  error 
was  rectified  when  the  Constitution  was  revised  in 
1900-04. 

"General  Conference  Journal,  1872,  p.  46. 

2Neely  discusses  this  at  length  in  The  Governing  Conference  in  Methodism. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII 


Lay  Delegation  (Continued) 

Under  the  rules,  given  in  the  preceding  chapter,  the 
General  Conferences  of  1872,  1876,  1880,  and  1884  were 
constituted. 

A  NEW  PROBLEM 

But  the  Conference  of  1888  was  confronted  by  a  deli- 
cate problem.  Five  women  had  been  elected  lav  delegates 
by  as  many  Electoral  Conferences — Frances  E.  Willard 
from  the  Rock  River,  Angle  F.  Newman  from  the  Ne- 
braska, Mary  C.  Nind  from  the  Minnesota,  Amanda  C. 
Rippey  from  the  Kansas,  and  Lizzie  D.  Van  Kirk  from 
the  Pittsburgh.  With  the  exception  of  the  last,  each 
claimed  a  seat. 

A  protest,  signed  by  ministers  and  laymen,  against 
the  seating  of  women,  had  been  sent  to  the  Bishops  prior 
to  the  convening  of  the  Conference.  The  senior  Bishop, 
Bowman,  presented  a  communication  from  the  Bishops 
proposing,  in  view  of  this,  that  the  Conference  be  organ- 
ized with  those  who  were  unquestionably  duly  qualified 
to  sit  as  members  of  the  body.  "And  it  will  then  be 
competent  for  the  Conference  to  act  upon  the  cases  in 
question  in  such  way  as  its  sense  of  justice  and  right 
shall  dictate  as  lawful  and  expedient."  In  pursuance  of 
this  opinion,  the  chair  directed  the  secretary  of  the  last 
Conference  to  call  the  roll.  The  Conference,  being  organ- 
ized, referred  the  question  of  eligibility  to  a  special 
committee.  The  action  on  the  report  of  the  committee 
declared  women  ineligible  under  the  Constitution,  and 
that  their  seats  were  vacant,  and  instructed  the  secretary 
to  notify  the  first  reserves. 

307 


308  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 
ARGUMENTS  FOR  AND  AGAINST  ELIGIBILITY  OP  WOMEN 

A  summary  of  the  arguments  on  both  sides  includes  the 
following:  Against  the  admission  of  women  it  was  argued, 
that  when  lay  delegates  were  admitted,  women  had  not 
been  legally  eligible  to  hold  any  office  in  the  government 
of  the  Church;  that,  while  the  laity  comprehended  the 
whole  body  of  the  Church  as  distinguished  from  the 
clergy,  without  regard  to  sex  or  age,  the  word  "laymen," 
with  respect  to  seats  in  the  legislative  body  of  the  Church, 
had  never  included  women.  Furthermore,  in  no  debate, 
prior  to  the  vote  to  change  the  Constitution  so  as  to 
admit  lay  delegates,  did  anyone  intimate  that  women 
would  be  eligible.  On  the  other  hand,  both  parties 
appealed  to  women  for  their  influence,  since  they  would 
not  be  eligible  in  any  case,  and  urged  them  to  vote  as 
disinterested  arbiters  on  the  question  of  lay  representa- 
tation. 

Those  in  favor  of  their  admission  maintained  that 
they  are  certainly  members  of  the  Church,  and  belong  to 
the  laity;  that  the  General  Conference  of  1872  declared 
that  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  lay  delegation  the  word 
"laymen"  included  all  meiiihers  of  the  Church  that  are 
not  memhcrs  of  Annual  Conferences;  that  from  the  be- 
ginning some  women  had  sat  in  the  Electoral  Confer- 
ences; that  it  made  no  difference  whether  women  were 
contemplated  or  not  when  the  Rule  was  passed;  that 
they  were  regularly  elected ;  to  refuse  them  seats  would 
be  to  disfranchise  the  constituency  that  sent  them;  and 
that  when  the  law  is  doubtful,  and  a  question  of  right 
is  involved,  the  law  should  he  construed  hroadly  in  favor 
of  the  rights  claimed. 

Those  who  upheld  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  claim 
replied  to  these  points  that  women  are  not  laymen  in  the 
sense  of  the  Restrictive  Rule;  that  the  vote  declaring 
who  are  laymen,  related  wholly  to  the  eligibility  of 


LAY  DELEGATION 


309 


local  preachers;  that  the  fact  that  women  had  sat  in 
Lay  Electoral  Conferences,  and  been  elected  reserve  dele- 
gates, settled  nothing,  as  the  reserve  had  no  standing 
unless  the  principal  defaulted,  therefore  the  question 
had  not  been  raised  in  the  General  Conference;  that  that 
body  could  not  destroy  the  Constitution  by  an  interpre- 
tation; and  that  the  terms  of  the  law  are  not  doubtful, 
taken  in  connection  ivith  the  existing  custom  from  the 
foundation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

To  this  it  was  replied  that  the  presumption  is  that 
the  General  Conference  meant  exactly  what  it  said :  and 
that  if  it  is  unconstitutional  for  a  woman  to  be  elected, 
it  is  unconstitutional  for  her  to  sit  in  Lay  Electoral  Con- 
ferences; and  therefore,  that  those  Conferences  which 
admitted  her  were  illegal.  To  this  was  answered  that, 
unless  they  were  there  in  sufficient  numbers  to  make  the 
result  of  actions  turn  upon  their  votes,  it  merely  bore 
the  same  relation  to  legality  that  it  would  if  laymen 
under  twenty-five  years  of  age  were  present. 

During  the  debate  the  report  was  amended  by  a  propo- 
sition to  submit  to  the  Church  the  question  of  a  change 
in  the  Restrictive  Rule  by  the  introduction  of  the  words, 
"and  the  said  delegates  may  he  men  or  women." 

On  the  final  vote  the  orders  divided,  and  the  report 
as  amended  was  adopted  by  a  concurrence  of  both  orders : 
159  ministers  voted  for  the  report,  and  122  against;  78 
laymen  for,  and  76  against.  Subsequent  to  this  action 
the  first  reserves  arrived  and  took  the  seats  thus  declared 
vacant. 

NEW  EFFORTS  TO  OPEN  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  DOOR 

The  most  exciting  question  of  the  next  quadrennium 
was  the  proposition  to  change  the  Constitution  so  as  to 
make  women  eligible  to  seats  in  the  General  Conference. 

The  laity  were  asked  to  express  their  wishes  in  the 


310  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

matter,  with  the  result  that  23.j,6G8  voted  that  women 
should  be  made  eligible  as  lay  delegates  in  the  Electoral 
and  General  Conferences,  and  163,843  voted  against  it. 
This  vote  had  no  legal  force,  and  its  moral  significance 
was  challenged  on  the  ground  that  the  whole  number 
voting  was  less  than  one  sixth  of  the  membership.  The 
challenge  was  met  by  the  statement  that  it  was  a  large 
vote  when  compared  with  other  votes  of  the  laity. 

The  legal  vote  of  the  ministry  to  change  the  Restrictive 
Rule  stood,  5,034  for  and  4,717  against.  The  Consti- 
tution requiring  a  vote  of  three  fourths  to  make  such  an 
alteration,  the  measure  failed  for  the  want  of  more  than 
two  thousand  votes. 

In  the  Conference  of  1892,  held  in  Omaha,  no  woman 
claimed  a  seat,  although  some  had  been  elected  reserve 
delegates.  The  advocates  of  admission  moved  a  reference 
of  the  subject  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  with  instruc- 
tions to  report  upon  the  eligibility  of  women.  It  unani- 
mously reported,  one  member  declining  to  vote,  that, 
under  the  situation  as  it  then  was,  women  were  ineligible. 
When  this  report  was  presented  it  was  moved  to  reverse 
the  statement. 

A  STRANGE  PROPOSITION  AND  ITS  RESULT 

Pending  the  discussion  of  the  substitute,  an  amend- 
ment was  offered  that  the  question  be  submitted  again 
to  the  laity  for  an  expression  of  opinion,  and  to  the 
ministry  for  a  change  in  the  Restrictive  Rule.  The  con- 
ditions of  the  proposition  were  unusual.  Members  of 
the  Annual  Conferences  were  requested  to  vote  upon  the 
question  of  amending  the  Restrictive  Rule  by  adding  the 
words,  "and  said  delegates  must  he  male  members."  (It 
was  assumed  that  if  the  amendment  so  submitted  did  not 
receive  the  necessary  votes  of  the  Annual  Conferences 
and  of  the  succeeding  General  Conference,  the  Rule 


LAY  DELEGATION 


311 


should  be  so  construed  that  the  words  "lay  delegates" 
might  include  both  men  and  women.)  The  vote  on  that 
stood:  for  the  adoption,  241;  against,  IGO.  This,  being 
less  than  two  thirds,  was  not  a  constitutional  vote. 

Tarious  Annual  Conferences  refused  to  vote  on  it  at 
all,  and  the  entire  vote  was  only  4,122:  in  favor  of  the 
amendment,  474;  against,  3,G48;  while,  by  the  same  Con- 
ferences voting  to  amend  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  (by 
adding  the  words  "and  said  delegates  may  be  men  or 
women"  after  the  words  ''two  lay  delegates  for  an  Annual 
Conference")  9,9G2  votes  were  cast.  As  only  2,608  of 
these  were  against  the  amendment,  it  is  obvious  that 
more  than  one  half  of  those  in  favor  of  the  admission  of 
women  constitutionally  refused  to  vote.  The  reason  for 
this  was  that  as  the  General  Conference  of  1888  had  de- 
cided that,  under  the  Constitution,  women  were  not 
eligible  to  seats  in  the  General  Conference,  and  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee  of  the  Conference  of  1892  had  unani- 
mously decided  that  they  were  ineligible,  and  as  a  resolu- 
tion declaring  them  eligible  had  been  laid  on  the  table,  it 
was  regarded  as  improper  to  reverse  the  proposition  to 
be  sent  down  to  the  Church.  Rut  the  argument  that  in- 
fluenced the  Church  as  a  whole  to  repudiate  the  proposi- 
tion was  that  the  General  Conference  of  1892  had  not 
reversed  the  action  of  1888,  and  that  if  such  a  method 
were  accounted  constitutionally  moral,  it  would  be  easy 
to  overthrow  any  existing  Rule  by  first  denying  its  inter- 
pretation and  then  submitting  a  proposition  to  reverse 
the  preceding  custom  and  interpretation  and  also  the 
declaration  of  the  preceding  General  Conference. 

The  reaction  caused  the  Colorado  and  Baltimore  Con- 
ferences respectively  to  submit  a  direct  proposition  to 
insert  into  the  Restrictive  Rule,  "Said  delegates  may  be 
men  and  women."  Requiring  three  fourths  of  all  the 
votes,  it  failed  by  a  small  margin. 


CHAPER  XXXIX 


Lay  Delegation  {Concluded) 

The  Conference  of  1896  included  among  the  lay  dele- 
gates Jane  F.  Bashford,  of  the  Ohio  Conference;  Ada  C. 
Butcher  and  Lois  S.  Parker,  of  the  North  India ;  Lvdia 
A.  Trimble,  of  the  Foo  Chow  Conference.  The  General 
Conference  of  1888  having  enacted  that  the  certificates  of 
election  of  persons  elected  to  the  General  Conference  be 
transmitted  to  the  secretary  of  the  preceding  General 
Conference,  and  be  prima  facie  evidence  of  their  right  to 
membership,  the  first  three  took  their  seats. 

ELIGIBILITY  CHALLENGED 

A  paper  challenging  their  right  was  presented  to  the 
Conference,  and  referred  to  a  "Committee  on  Eligibility," 
consisting  of  one  minister  and  one  layman  from  each 
General  Conference  district,  and  three  at  large. 

On  the  third  day  the  three  women  who  were  present 
presented  a  communication  stating,  that  though  they  be- 
lieved themselves  legally  entitled  to  seats,  they  would 
withdraw,  not  desiring  to  be  the  center  of  controversy. 

A.  J.  Kynett,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Eligibility, 
then  reported: 

Your  committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the  challenge  of  the 
eligibility  of  women  in  the  General  Conference,  of  Lydia  A. 
Trimble,  delegate-elect  from  the  Foochow  Electoral  Conference, 
Lois  S.  Parker  and  Ada  C.  Butcher,  delegate-elect  from  the 
North  India  Electoral  Conference;  and  Jane  Field  Bashford, 
delegate-elect  from  the  Ohio  Electoral  Conference,  having  care- 
fully considered  the  same,  report  that  the  challenge  is  not 
sustained,  and  that  the  aforesaid  lady  delegates-elect,  are  not 
ineligible  to  this  body.' 


"General  Conference  Journal,  1896,  p.  92. 

312 


LAY  DELEGATION' 


313 


T.  B,  Neely  presented  a  minority  report,  which  related 
the  action  of  previous  General  Conferences,  and  thus 
closed : 

We  find,  therefore,  that  the  challenge  of  the  eligibility  of  the 
women  whose  names  have  appeared  on  the  roll  of  this  General 
Conference  is  sustained,  that  the  elections  of  women  by  Lay 
Electoral  Conferences  are  illegal  acts,  and  that  to  seat  the 
claimants  would  tend  to  destroy  all  respect  for  the  Constitution 
of  the  Church,  and  for  the  decisions  and  interpretations  of  the 
General  Conference.' 

A  long  discussion  ensued. 

On  May  7  the  Committee  on  Eligibility  made  another 
report,  which,  as  finally  passed,  contained  a  resolution  to 
submit  to  the  Church  a  new  proposition  to  change  the 
Restrictive  Rule  so  as  to  admit  of  the  election  of  women, 
the  gist  of  which  change  was  the  substituting  of  "person" 
for  the  word  "layman,"  and  the  report  concluded : 

The  challenge  not  havimg  been  judicially  passed  upon,  those 
occupying  the  seats  in  question  do  so  under  a  title  in  dispute,  yet 
without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  either  challengers  or  chal- 
lenged, and  without  establishing  a  precedent. - 

Divers  members  of  the  committee,  though  having  agreed 
with  the  report  for  the  disposal  of  the  case  in  that  Con- 
ference, being  opposed  on  various  grounds  to  the  admis- 
sion of  women,  voted  in  the  negative.  The  affirmative 
vote  was  425,  the  negative,  98. 

Lydia  A.  Trimble,  who  had  arrived  during  the  discus- 
sion and  taken  her  seat,  declining  to  sit  "under  a  title  in 
dispute."  withdrew. 

In  the  Annual  Conferences  the  vote  was:  in  favor  of 
the  amendment,  7,455;  against,  3,636.  This  was  not  suffi- 
cient, if  the  succeeding  General  Conference  had  furnished 
the  necessary  two  thirds.    But  the  General  Conference 

•General  Conference  Journal.  1896,  pp.  93,  94. 
2Ibid..  1896.  p.  418. 


314  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


of  1900  did  not  put  this  proposition  to  vote.  A  broader 
measure  took  its  place. 

EQUAL  REPRESENTATION  DEMANDED 

From  the  year  1872,  when  laymen  were  admitted,  there 
had  been  much  dissatisfaction  with  the  small  proportion 
accorded  them.  An  appeal  was  made  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1880  for  a  modification  of  the  law,  so  as  to 
authorize  equal  representation  in  the  General  Conference. 

In  1884  there  were  many  memorials  and  much  discus- 
sion, and  a  commission  to  be  appointed  by  the  Bishops 
consisting  of  one  from  every  General  Conference  district, 
and  one  at  large,  was  ordered  to  take  into  consideration 
the  whole  subject  of  representation,  ministerial  and  lay, 
and  rei)ort  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  next 
General  Conference. 

This  commission  recommended  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1888  "to  take  the  necessary  action  to  hand  down 
to  the  Annual  Conferences  during  the  year  1890"  a  prop- 
osition to  change  the  Constitution  on  this  subject,  so  that 
it  should  read :  "Nor  allow  of  a  greater  number  of  lay 
delegates  than  there  may  be  ministerial  delegates."  The 
resolution  on  this  subject  was  voted  on  by  orders,  and 
therefore  by  ayes  and  noes.  In  its  favor  there  were  157 
ministerial  votes;  against,  114.  Of  the  laymen  121  voted 
in  the  afHrmative,  and  24  in  the  negative.  This  sent  the 
report  down  to  the  Annual  Conferences,  but  not  with  the 
constitutional  numher. 

The  resolution  was  defeated  in  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, the  vote  being  5,501  against  and  2,926  for. 

Another  proposition  was  submitted  at  the  request  of 
the  Philadelphia  Conference,  which  provided  that  the 
ministerial  and  lay  delegates  should  deliberate  and  vote 
as  one  body  and  never  as  separate  orders,  and  that  "there 
shall  be  as  many  lay  delegates  for  an  Annual  Conference 


LAY  DELEGATION 


315 


as  there  are  ministerial."  This  motion  was  also  lost, 
there  being  a  vote  of  2,310  for  and  4,849  against. 

A  long  list  of  memorials  relating  to  the  subject  was 
presented  to  the  General  Conference  in  1892.  That  Con- 
ference sent  down  to  the  Annual  Conferences  a  proposi- 
tion to  change  the  Discipline  so  that  there  should  be  an 
equal  number  of  laj  and  ministerial  delegates,  "who  shall 
deliberate  and  vote  with  the  ministers  as  one  body." 
One  hundred  and  forty-three  laymen  voted  in  the  aflSr- 
mative,  and  10  in  the  negative ;  of  the  ministers,  197  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  and  108  in  the  negative. 

The  chair  announced  that  the  report  was  adopted  by 
the  concurrent  vote  of  the  two  orders ;  but  a  point  of  law 
was  raised  that  two  thirds  of  the  ministerial  order  had 
not  voted  to  adopt  the  report.  Whereupon  this  question 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  which 
reported  as  follows : 

The  vote  upon  the  adoption  of  the  report  having  been  taken 
by  orders,  and  the  two  orders  having  concurred  by  a  majority 
vote  of  each  order  in  the  affirmative,  it  appearing  that  two 
thirds  of  the  General  Conference  had  voted  in  favor  of  the 
adoption  of  the  report,  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  committee  that 
the  report  was  duly  adopted,  and  the  recommendation  has  been 
legally  and  constitutionally  made.* 

The  Annual  Conferences  refused  to  coalesce,  there  be- 
ing in  favor  of  the  amendment  2,894,  and  against  it  6,138, 
The  smallness  of  the  vote  in  favor  was  largely  caused  by 
the  provision  that  the  lay  delegates  should  deliberate  and 
vote  with  the  ministers  as  one  body,  it  being  believed  that 
in  the  absence  of  two  houses,  the  power  to  divide  and 
vote  on  critical  questions  was  essential  to  the  eliciting  of 
the  feeling  and  judgment  of  each  order, 

APPROACHING  THE  GOAL 

Many  memorials  were  sent  to  the  Conference  of  1896. 

•General  Conference  Journal,  1892,  p.  492. 


31G  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Lay  Representation  left 
out  the  statement  that  they  should  "sit,  deliberate,  and 
vote  as  one  body,"  and  simply  proposed  that  there  should 
be  from  each  Annual  Conference  lay  delegates  equal  in 
number  to  the  ministerial  delegates.  In  the  report  the 
General  Conference  was  said  to  recommend  the  proposi- 
tion; but  the  word  "recommend"  was  stricken  out  and 
the  word  "submit"  inserted.  The  report,  as  thus 
amended,  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  289  ayes  to  47  noes. 
This  change  made  it  impossible  to  effect  the  result  with- 
out the  aid  of  the  next  General  Conference. 

During  the  ensuing  quadrennium  the  Church  was  much 
agitated.  The  proposition  was  defeated  in  the  Annual 
Conferences.  In  favor  of  the  amendment  there  were 
4,3G2  votes,  and  against  6,3')4. 

The  mere  fact  of  the  defeat  of  this  proposition  had  no 
bearing  upon  the  right  of  other  Annual  Conferences  to 
propose  and  send  round  other,  or  similar,  resolutions. 
The  Rock  River  Conference  requested  the  Bishops  to  sub- 
mit to  the  several  Annual  Conferences,  at  the  first  regular 
session  of  each  Conference  held  after  January  1,  1898, 
changes,  by  striking  out  and  inserting,  which  would  re- 
sult in  the  following  form  for  Paragraph  GO:  "The  lay 
delegates  shall  consist  of  one  layman  for  each  Annual 
Conference,  except  such  Conferences  as  have  more  than 
one  ministerial  delegate,  which  Conferences  shall  be  en- 
titled to  as  many  lay  delegates  as  ministerial  delegates"; 
and  it  provided  also  for  the  verbal  changes  necessary  in 
all  parts  of  the  Discipline  to  agree  therewith. 

A  marvelous  reversal  of  the  last  vote  was  the  result. 
In  favor  of  the  amendment  9,258  ministers  recorded  them- 
selves, and  against  1,524. 

A  strong  desire  and  determination  arose  that  there 
should  be  provisional  delegates  ready  to  enter  the  Con- 
ference of  1900  similar  to  those  who  were  admitted  in  the 


LAY  DELEGATION 


317 


General  Conference  of  1872.  This  spirit  found  expres- 
sion in  the  action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  which  re- 
quested the  Bishops  to  submit  to  the  \nnua]  Conferences 
in  1899  and  1900  the  following  proposition  to  amend  the 
Discipline: 

That,  if  three  fourths  of  the  members  of  the  Aanual  Con- 
ferences present  and  voting  during  1899  and  1900  shall  approve 
of  this  amendment,  and  it  shall  also  receive  the  concurrence  of 
two  thirds  of  the  General  Conference  of  1900,  and  the  Electoral 
Conferences  of  1899  and  1900  shall  have  selected  provisional 
representatives,  having  the  qualifications  and  selected  in  the 
manner  now  determining  the  election  of  lay  delegates,  so  that 
the  whole  number  of  lay  delegates  and  provisional  representa- 
tives selected  for  any  Conference  shall  equal  the  number  of 
ministerial  delegates  for  said  Conference,  the  General  Conference 
of  1900  may  provide  for  their  admission  as  lay  delegates.' 

In  favor  of  the  resolution  there  were  2,738  votes, 
against,  591. 

EQU.\L  REPRESENTATION  FINALLY  SECURED 

ImmediatelT  after  the  opening  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1900  three  resolutions,  signed  by  six  ministers 
and  four  laymen — all  members  of  the  Conference — were 
presented.   The  first  was: 

Whereas,  The  Rock  River  Annual  Conference,  at  its  fifty- 
eighth  annual  session,  held  in  Chicago,  Illinois,  beginning  Oc- 
tober 6,  1897,  requested  the  Bishops  to  submit  to  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  at  the  first  regular  session  of  each  Confer- 
ence held  after  January  1,  1898,  the  following  proposition:  "To 
amend  Section  2  of  Paragraph  67  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  by 
striking  out  the  words  'nor  of  more  than  two  lay  delegates  for 
an  Annual  Conference,'  and  inserting  the  words  'nor  of  more  lay 
delegates  from  an  Annual  Conference  than  there  are  ministerial 
delegates  from  such  Annual  Conference,'  so  that  the  section  as 
amended,  shall  read:  'Section  2.  The  General  Conference  shall 
not  allow  of  more  than  one  ministerial  representative  for  every 


■General  Conference  Journal,  1900.  p.  377. 


318  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


fourteen  members  of  an  Annual  Conference;  nor  of  a  less  number 
than  one  for  every  forty-five,  nor  of  more  lay  delegates  from  an 
Annual  Conference  than  there  are  ministerial  delegates  from 
such  Annual  Conference;  provided,  nevertheless,  that  when 
there  shall  be  in  any  Annual  Conference  a  fraction  of  two  thirds 
the  number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation, 
such  Annual  Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  dele- 
gate for  such  fraction;  and  provided,  also,  that  no  Conference 
shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of  one  ministerial  and  of  one  lay 
delegate'  ";  and, 

Whereas,  The  Bishops  submitted  to  the  several  Annual  Con- 
ferences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  at  the  first  regular 
session  of  each  Conference,  held  after  January  1,  1898,  the  above 
proposition  to  amend  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule,  which  propo- 
sition was  voted  upon  by  the  said  Annual  Conferences,  and  was 
concurred  in  by  three  fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  said 
Annual  Conferences  who  were  present  and  voted  on  the  said 
recommendation;  therefore,  be  it 

Resolved.  By  the  twenty-third  delegated  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  held  in  the  city  of  Chicago, 
in  the  State  of  Illinois,  beginning  May  2,  1900,  that  we  hereby 
concur  in  the  proposed  change  of  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule, 
and  it  is  hereby  so  amended  as  to  read: 

67,  §  2.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  allow  of  more 
than  one  ministerial  representative  for  every  fourteen  members 
of  an  Annual  Conference,  nor  of  a  less  number  than  one  for 
every  forty-five,  nor  of  more  lay  delegates  from  an  Annual  Con- 
ference than  there  are  ministerial  delegates  from  such  Annual 
Conference;  provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be 
any  Aanual  Conference  a  fraction  of  two  thirds  the  number 
which  shall  be  fixed  by  the  ratio  of  representation,  such  Annual 
Conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such 
fraction;  and  provided,  also,  that  no  Conference  shall  be  denied 
the  privilege  of  one  ministerial  and  of  one  lay  delegate."' 

The  vote  on  this  was  taken  by  ayes  and  noes,  with  the 
result  that  509  votes  were  in  favor  and  none  against,  55 
being  absent  or  not  voting.  Bishop  Merrill  then  an- 
nounced "that  the  constitutional  change  had  been  ef- 
fected by  the  concurrence  of  this  General  Conference." 


"General  Conference  Journal,  1900,  p.  102. 


LAY  DELEGATION 


319 


The  second  resolution  did  not  deal  with  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  merely  altered  the  Discipline  in  other  para- 
graphs, so  that  thev  would  harmonize  with  the  change  in 
the  Restrictive  Rule,  just  consummated.  It  required  only 
a  majority  to  pass  it,  and  was  unanimously  adopted. 

The  third  resolution  was: 

Whereas,  The  Rock  River  Annual  Conference,  at  its  session 
in  Chicago,  Illinois,  beginning  October  6,  1897,  requested  the 
Bishops  to  submit  to  the  several  Annual  Conferences  at  the  first 
regular  session  of  each  Conference  held  after  January  1,  1898, 
a  proposition  to  amend  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  of  the  Book 
of  Discipline  so  as  to  provide  for  equal  ministerial  and  lay 
representation  in  the  General  Conference;  and. 

Whereas,  This  proposition  has  been  duly  approved  by  three 
fourths  of  the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  pres- 
ent and  voting,  and  by  two  thirds  of  the  members  of  this 
twenty-third  delegated  General  Conference;  and. 

Whereas,  The  Lay  Electoral  Conferences  have  selected  pro- 
visional delegates  sufficient  in  number  to  complete  the  quota  to 
which  such  Annual  Conferences  are  now  entitled;  therefore. 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  the  General  Conference  is 
hereby  instructed  to  call  the  roll  of  provisional  delegates  selected 
by  the  several  Lay  Electoral  Conferences  entitled  to  additional 
lay  delegates,  and  that  such  provisional  delegates  be  admitted 
as  members  of  this  General  Conference;  provided,  that  if  objec- 
tion to  the  admission  of  any  provisional  delegate  or  delegates 
be  made  by  six  members  of  the  Conference,  then  the  case  of 
such  delegate  or  delegates  shall  be  deferred  until  all  to  whom 
no  objection  is  made  have  been  duly  admitted;  after  whicS  the 
deferred  cases,  if  any,  may  be  called  and  decided  on  their  merits.' 

It  was  unanimously  adopted. 

These  necessary  proceedings  being  ended,  the  pro- 
visional delegates,  no  longer  provisional  but  actual,  took 
their  seats. 

During  the  proceedings  D.  H.  Moore,  under  a  question 
of  privilege,  presented  a  letter  from  Mrs.  Mattie  Yates 
McMahon,  one  of  the  eight  women  elected  as  provisional 

'General  Conference  Journal.  1900,  p.  106. 


320  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

delegates.  The  part  relating  to  the  immediate  conditions 
is  in  these  paragraphs : 

To  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  Chicago,  Illinois: 

Greeting:  In  presenting  to  you  my  greetings,  I  desire  to  say 
that  I  have  not  swerved  one  iota  from  the  views  I  have  always 
held  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  women  to  a  seat  in  your  honorable 
body. 


Therefore,  waiving  none  of  the  principles  involved  in  the 
eligibility  of  women,  yet,  for  the  sake  of  removing  every  possible 
hindrance  to  the  immediate  seating  of  these  provisional  candi- 
dates, so  far  as  that  hindrance  may  be  occasioned  by  the  ques- 
tion of  admission,  I  shall  not  present  my  credentials  for  admis- 
sion to  this  Conference.  When  elected  a  provisional  delegate 
by  my  own  Lay  Conference  a  responsibility  came  with  it  that 
could  not  be  lightly  treated.  That  responsibility  is  now  trans- 
ferred to  you. 


Very  respectfully  yours, 

(Mrs.)  Mattie  Yates  McMahon.' 

This  sacriflce  is  worthy  of  permanent  recollection. 

From  that  time  the  number  of  lay  and  clerical  dele- 
gates has  been  equal.  However,  the  undisputed  founda- 
tion for  the  eligibility  of  women  as  delegates  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  was  not  finally  laid  until  the  completion 
of  the  revision  of  the  Constitution. 


'General  Conference  Journal.  1900,  p.  107. 


CHAPTER  XL 


The  Revision  op  the  Constitution 

In  1888  the  General  Conference  appointed  a  Constitu- 
tional Commission  of  nine  members,  who  recommended 
"the  appointment  of  a  Commission  of  seven  ministers  and 
seven  laymen,  one  from  each  General  Conference  district, 
and  three  of  the  General  Superintendents,  who  may  pre- 
pare paragraphs  to  take  the  place  of  Paragraphs  63  and 
64,  inclusive,  in  the  present  edition  of  the  Discipline,  said 
paragraphs  to  define  and  determine  the  Constitution  of 
the  General  Conference,  to  state  of  whom  it  shall  be  com- 
posed and  by  what  method  it  shall  be  organized;  to  de- 
clare what  shall  be  the  powers  thereof  and  in  what  man- 
ner they  shall  be  exercised,  and  to  provide  the  process  by 
which  the  Constitution  or  any  part  thereof  shall  be 
amended,  and  report  to  the  General  Conference  of  1892." 
They  said  that  they  "are  convinced  that  the  organic  law 
of  the  Church,  and  especially  the  Constitution  of  the 
General  Conference,  need  to  be  accurately  defined  and 
determined ;  that  the  method  to  be  pursued  in  the  organi- 
zation of  the  General  Conference  should  be  precisely  and 
explicitly  stated;  that  the  relations  of  lay  to  ministerial 
representations  should  be  more  satisfactorily  adjusted."* 

The  report  was  presented  on  the  third  day  of  the  Con- 
ference of  1892,  and  was  read,  as  was  also  a  minority  re- 
port. On  May  10  the  consideration  of  the  report  was 
begun.  Bishop  Merrill,  one  of  the  Commission,  was  in- 
vited to  give  such  explanations  of  the  history  and  mean- 
ing of  any  part  of  the  Constitution  during  the  debate  as 
he  might  consider  fit. 

■General  Conference  Journal,  1888,  p.  468. 

321 


322  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

Speedily  a  substitute  to  the  report  was  presented, 
which  was  lost.  The  next  day  the  discussion  was  re- 
sumed and  amendments  moved,  and  finally  a  substitute 
for  the  report  as  it  stood. 

On  the  twelfth  day  there  were  many  speakers,  and  the 
Conference  became  confused.  A  motion  was  made  that 
the  whole  matter  be  indefinitely  postponed,  with  instruc- 
tions to  have  the  report  published  in  the  papers  of  the 
Church  and  presented  to  the  next  General  Conference. 
After  considerable  discussion  the  substitute  was  accepted 
by  a  vote  of  233  to  190,  and  finally  was  adopted. 

Great  pains  had  been  taken  by  the  Commission,  and 
the  report  contained  some  valuable  improvements,  but 
certain  phases  of  it  did  not  carry  conviction  to  the 
majority  of  the  Conference. 

Early  in  the  session  of  1896  a  Committee  on  Constitu- 
tion was  appointed.  Many  changes  and  amendments 
were  proposed.  There  were  a  majority  and  a  minority  re- 
port, and  on  May  27  William  F.  Warren  moved  the  fol- 
lowing, which  prevailed: 

That  the  General  Conference  requests  the  Bishops  to  appoint 
a  committee  to  consist  of  six  laymen,  six  ministers,  and  three 
General  Superintendents,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  review  the 
work  of  the  Constitutional  Commission  of  1888,  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  Committee  on  Constitution  appointed  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1896,  and  the  recommendations  of  all  General  Con- 
ference Committees  on  Lay  Representation,  .  .  .;  and  that  it 
shall  present  its  report  to  the  Church  papers  for  publication 
as  early  as  January,  1899,  and  after  revising  it  between  January 
1  and  May  1,  1900,  in  the  light  of  all  discussions  and  amend- 
ments then  available,  present  it  in  its  final  form  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1900. 

Never  was  more  pains  taken  to  perfect  the  Constitu- 
tion of  any  ecclesiastical  constituency. 

AN  EPITOME  OF  THE  WORK  DONE 

The  organic  law  was  divided  as  follows:  I.  Articles  of 


THE  REVISION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


323 


Religion;  II.  The  General  Rules;  III.  Articles  of  Organi- 
zation and  Government.  The  first  and  second  of  these 
divisions  were  not  affected  by  the  revision.  Part  of  Divi- 
sion III  consists  of  pastoral  charges,  Quarterly  and 
Annual  Conferences.  This  dignifies  and  protects  those 
important  elements  of  the  Church.  Part  second  deals 
with  The  General  Conference.  Article  I,  "How  Com- 
posed?" 

From  the  section,  "Of  the  Election  of  Ministerial  Dele- 
gates," the  phrase  ''hy  seniority"  was  removed  as  of  no 
use,  for  since  1808  no  one  has  been  made  a  delegate  by 
that  method. 

The  Annual  Conference  is  empowered  to  elect  reserve 
delegates,  a  practice  which  grew  up  with  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  was  not  recognized  by  words  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

The  Article  on  Lay  Delegation  is  much  changed.  For 
the  first  time  it  is  said  "Each  Lay  Electoral  Conference 
shall  be  entitled  to  elect  as  many  delegates  to  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  as  there  are  ministerial  delegates  from 
the  Annual  Conference." 

As  respects  Presiding  Officers,  in  the  revised  Constitu- 
tion it  is  provided  that  "The  General  Superintendents 
shall  preside  in  the  General  Conference  in  such  order  as 
they  may  determine." 

This  is  an  important  change;  the  custom  had  been  that 
the  senior  Bishop  should  preside  on  the  first  day,  the 
others  succeeding  in  their  order  of  election.  By  the 
present  method  the  Bishops  respectively  may  be  suited  to 
each  situation,  appointing  the  best  parliamentarian  on  a 
day  most  liable  to  have  excited  debates  or  intricate 
problems. 

There  is  a  distinct  Article  on  Organization  and  another 
on  Voting: 

In  all  cases  of  separate  voting  it  shall  require  the  concur- 


324  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

rence  of  the  two  orders  to  adopt  the  proposed  measure;  except 
that  for  changes  of  the  Constitution  a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  the 
General  Conference  shall  be  sufficient,  as  provided  in  Article  XI. 

Article  X  consists  of  Powers  and  Restrictions.  This 
covers  what  are  called  "The  Restrictive  Rules." 

The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  power  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  Church  under  the  following  limitations 
and  restrictions,  viz.: 

Article  I.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  nor 
change  our  Articles  of  Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  Standards 
or  Rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present  existing  and  estab- 
lished Standards  of  doctrine. 

The  Second  Restrictive  Rule,  until  this  change,  was: 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  min- 
isterial representative  for  every  fourteen  members  of  an  Annual 
Conference;  nor  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  forty-five; 
nor  of  more  than  two  lay  delegates  for  an  Annual  Conference; 
provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be  in  any  Annual 
Conference  a  fraction  of  two  thirds  the  number  which  shall  be 
fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation,  such  Annual  Conference 
shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such  fraction; 
and  provided,  also,  that  no  Conference  shall  be  denied  the  privi- 
lege of  one  ministerial  and  of  one  lay  delegate. 

But  the  Second  Restrictive  Rule  now  is : 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  organize  nor  authorize  the 
organization  of  an  Annual  Conference  with  less  than  twenty- 
five  members. 

The  previous  "Second  Restrictive  Rule"  was  trans- 
ferred to  Article  II,  in  Part  Second,  under  the  title 
"Ministerial  Delegates." 

The  Third  Rule  is  as  before;  also  the  Fourth.  The 
Fifth  is  somewhat  altered.   It  is  as  follows: 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  deprive  our  ministers  of 
the  right  of  trial  by  the  Annual  Conference;  nor  shall  it  deprive 
our  members  of  the  right  of  trial  by  a  committee  of  members 
of  our  Church,  nor  of  an  appeal. 


THE  REVISION  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION 


325 


Originally  it  was: 

The  General  Conference  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of 
our  ministers  or  preachers  of  trial  by  a  committee  and  of  an 
appeal;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  mem- 
bers of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an 
appeal. 

LESS  DIFFICULT  TO  OBTAIN 

Article  XI  deals  with  the  altering  of  the  Restrictive 
Rules.   It  is  now : 

The  concurrent  recommendation  of  two  thirds  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  several  Annual  Conferences  present  and  voting,  and 
of  two  thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  Lay  Electoral  Conferences 
present  and  voting,  shall  suffice  to  authorize  the  next  ensuing 
General  Conference  by  a  two-thirds  vote  to  alter  or  amend  any 
of  the  provisions  of  this  Constitution,  excepting  Article  X,  §  1; 
and  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  amendment  shall  have 
been  first  recommended  by  a  General  Conference  by  a  two-thirds 
vote,  then  so  soon  as  two  thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  several 
Annual  Conferences  present  and  voting,  and  two  thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  Lay  Electoral  Conferences  present  and 
voting,  shall  have  concurred  therein,  such  alteration  or  amend- 
ment shall  take  effect;  and  the  result  of  the  vote  shall  be  an- 
nounced by  the  General  Superintendents. 

The  substitution  of  "two  thirds"  instead  of  "three 
fourths"  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  Annual  Con- 
ferences makes  a  change  somewhat  easier  to  accomplish. 

In  the  discussion  concerning  that  proposition,  those 
who  wished  to  retain  the  "three  fourths"  did  so  because 
they  desired  that  "the  Constitution  should  not  be  trifled 
with."  The  other  part  argued  for  "tico  thirds"  because 
two  thirds  of  the  laity  was  sufficient ;  and  that  each  order 
should  have  the  same  voting  control. 

Some  ministers  were  willing  to  give  up  their  numerical 
superiority  because  they  had  more  confidence  in  the  cau- 
tion of  the  laity  than  in  the  ministry.  As  a  whole,  the 
three  great  changes  are  the  results  of  the  various  modi- 


326  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ficatioDs:  The  Quarterly  Conference  must  be  organized 
in  each  pastoral  charge;  and  the  oflQcial  board  cannot 
supersede  it.  Traveling  preachers  are  specifically  re- 
quired to  attend  the  sessions  of  the  Annual  Conference 
to  which  they  belong.  And  for  the  first  time  the  clergy 
and  laity  are  equally  represented  in  the  Constitution  and 
women  universally  recognized  as  eligible  to  election  to 
the  General  Conference. 

The  Church  at  large  accepted  the  revision  by  the  joint 
action  of  the  Annual  Conferences  and  the  Lay  Electoral 
Conferences,  with  unusual  jubilation. 


PRINCIPAL  UNSUCCESSFUL  ATTEMPTS 
TO  CHANGE  THE  CONSTITUTION 


CHAPTER  XLI 


The  Presiding  Eldership 

This  arm  of  the  episcopacy  has  been  a  heated  center  of 
contention,  not  only  during  the  one  hundred  years  of  the 
existence  of  the  Church  under  the  Constitution,  but 
almost  from  its  origin. 

It  was  one  of  the  reasons  of  the  establishment  of  the 
Methodist  Protestant  Church,  and  came  near  causing  a 
large  secession,  if  not  the  forming  of  still  another  denomi- 
nation. 

For  a  long  time  it  was  supposed  that  prior  to  1792  all 
elders  were  presiding  elders,  whereas  only  those  whom 
Bishops  assigned  to  districts  were  presiding  elders.  In 
1876,  Arthur  Edwards,  editor  of  the  Northwestern  Chris- 
tian Advocate,  published  the  following  illuminating  list: 


YEAB                                    TOTAL  ELDERS     ELDEBS  ON  DISTRICTS 

1785   20  12 

1786   28  22 

1787   25  22 

1788   22  13 

1789   30  18 

1790   67  20 

1791   62  18 

1792   78  18 


Lee,  in  his  comments  on  178.5,  says: 

The  form  of  the  Minutes  of  Conference  was  changed  this  year, 
and  all  the  elders,  who  were  directed  to  take  oversight  of  several 
circuits,  were  set  to  the  right  hand  of  a  bracket,  which  inclosed 
all  the  circuits  and  preachers  of  which  he  was  to  take  charge. 
This  may  be  considered  as  the  beginning  of  the  presiding  elder's 
office;  although  it  was  not  known  by  that  name  at  that  time; 
yet  iia  the  absence  of  a  Superintendent,  this  elder  had  the  direct- 
329 


330  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


ing  of  all  the  preachers  that  were  inclosed  in  the  bracket  againsi 
•which  his  name  was  set.^ 

In  1792  he  says: 

The  5th  Section  had  respect  to  the  presiding  elders.  Such 
an  order  of  elders  had  never  been  regularly  established  before. 
They  had  been  appointed  by  the  Bishop  for  several  years;  but 
it  was  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  preachers  whether  such 
power  belonged  to  him.  The  General  Conference  now  determined 
that  there  should  be  presiding  elders;  and  that  they  should  be 
chosen,  stationed,  and  changed  by  the  Bishop.  .  .  .  The  presiding 
elder  was  to  be  supported  by  the  surplus  money  in  each  circuit; 
but  if  there  was  no  surplus,  then  he  was  to  share  in  proportion 
with  the  preachers  of  the  circuit.- 

The  question  in  its  simplest  form  is  this :  Is  it  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Bishops  solely,  under  constitutional  pro- 
tection, ''to  appoint  presiding  elders";  to  "fix  the  number 
of  the  districts,"  and  to  "determine  their  boundaries"; 
or  is  it  within  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  to 
authorize  the  Annual  Conferences  respectively  to  do  any, 
or  all,  of  these  things? 

No  one  denies  that  ever  since  presiding  elders  have 
existed,  the  Bishops  alone  have  had  this  power,  and 
have  used  it  in  every  instance.  No  presiding  elder  has 
ever  been  elected  or  appointed  by  an  Annual  or  General 
Conference  since  the  Constitution  was  formed.  No  Con- 
ference has  ever  fixed  the  number  or  bounds  of  its 
districts. 

But  these  facts  have  not  been  sufficient  to  prevent,  in 
several  General  Conferences,  the  most  vigorously  defended 
claims  for  the  right  of  Annual  Conferences  to  elect  pre- 
siding elders  themselves,  or  conjointly  with  the  Bishop. 
The  issue,  therefore,  turns  on  the  history  of  the  office 
and  its  relation  to  the  constitutional  plan  of  Itinerant 
General  Superintendency. 

'History  of  the  Methodists,  pp.  119,  120. 
nUd..  p.  183. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


331 


1808 

In  the  Discipline  of  1808,  which  contained  every  part 
of  the  "plan  of  our  Itinerant  General  tr?uperintendency," 
Section  5  is: 

Of  the  Presiding  Elders  and  of  Their  Duty 
Quest.  1.    By  whom  are  the  presiding  elders  to  be  chosen? 
Ans.    By  the  Bishops. 

Quest.  2.    What  are  the  duties  of  a  presiding  elder? 
Ans.  1.    To  travel  through  his  appointed  district. 

2.  In  the  absence  of  the  Bishop,  to  take  charge  of  all  the 
elders  and  deacons,  traveling  and  local  preachers,  and  exhorters 
in  his  district. 

3.  To  change,  receive,  and  suspend  preachers  in  his  district 
during  the  intervals  of  the  Conferences,  and  in  the  absence  of  a 
Bishop,  as  the  Discipline  directs. 

4.  .  .  . 

5.  To  be  present,  as  far  as  practicable,  at  all  the  quarterly 
meetings;  and  to  call  together  at  each  quarterly  meeting,  a 
quarterly  meeting  Conference,  consisting  of  all  the  traveling 
and  local  preachers,  exhorters,  stewards,  and  leaders  of  the 
circuit,  and  none  else,  to  hear  complaints,  and  to  receive  and  try 
appeals.  .  .  . 

6.  To  oversee  the  spiritual  and  temporal  business  of  the 
societies  in  his  district. 

7.  To  take  care  that  every  part  of  our  Discipline  be  enforced 
— in  his  district. 

8.  To  attend  the  Bishops  when  present  in  his  district;  and  to 
give  them,  when  absent,  all  necessary  information,  by  letter,  of 
the  state  of  his  district. 

Quest.  3.  By  whom  are  the  presiding  elders  to  be  stationed 
and  changed? 

Ans.    By  the  Bishops. 


When  the  Conference  of  1808  was  debating  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  "Regulating  and  Perpetuating  Gen- 
eral Conferences,"  Ezekiel  Cooper,  some  time  after  his 
motion  for  seven  Bishops,  there  being  seven  Conferences, 
was  lost,  moved  "to  postpone  the  present  question  to 


332  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


make  room  for  the  consideration  of  a  new  resolution  as 
preparatory  to  the  minds  of  the  brethren  to  determine 
on  the  present  subject."  This  being  granted,  Cooper 
moved : 

That  in  the  fifth  section  of  the  Discipline,  after  the  question, 
"By  whom  shall  the  presiding  elders  be  chosen?"  the  answer 
shall  be: 

"Ans.  Each  Annual  Conference  respectively,  without  debate, 
shall  annually  choose,  by  ballot,  its  own  pi-esiding  elders."' 

This  proposal  was  debated  in  the  afternoon  until 
adjournment,  and  privately  discussed  in  the  evening. 
The  next  morning  Soule  moved  to  take  the  vote  "on  the 
motion  of  electing  presiding  elders  without  further 
debate."  This  was  lost,  but  after  several  hours  of  debate, 
it  was  at  last  successfully  moved  to  proceed  to  the  vote, 
which,  on  motion,  was  by  ballot,  and  stood:  for  the 
election  of  presiding  elders  52;  against,  73. 

1812 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1812  these  questions 
again  appeared  in  a  motion  made  by  Clark,  of  the  New 
York  Conference,  for  the  election  of  presiding  elders  by 
the  Annual  Conferences.  Snethen  moved  the  following 
amendment : 

Provided  always,  that  the  Bishops  shall  have  the  power  to 
nominate  them,  and  if  the  first  nomination  is  not  ratified  by  a 
majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  the  Bishop  shall  proceed  to 
nominate  until  a  choice  is  made;  and  in  all  cases,  each  nomina- 
tion shall  be  determined  separately  by  ballot  without  debate. 2 

Douglass  moved  that  the  subject  be  laid  on  the  table  until 
"we  request  our  Superintendents  to  explain  their  opinion 
respecting  it."  This  was  lost,  41  for,  and  42  against. 
Douglass  then  moved  that  the  Conference  go  into  a  Com- 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1808,  vol.  i,  p.  83. 
nbid..  1808.  vol.  i,  p.  114. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


333 


inittee  of  the  Whole.  This  motion  he  withdrew.  Sneth- 
en's  amendment  was  then  voted  upon,  with  39  for,  and 
43  against.  In  the  afternoon  the  original  motion  was 
put  to  vote,  with  the  result  of  42  for  placing  the  power 
of  selecting  presiding  elders  in  the  hands  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  and  45  against  it. 

1816 

In  the  Conference  of  1810,  Merwin,  of  the  New  York 
Conference,  moved  an  amendment  to  the  rule  in  the 
Discipline  respecting  presiding  elders: 

Question  1.  How  shall  the  presiding  elders  be  chosen  and 
appointed? 

Answer.  At  an  early  period  in  each  Annual  Conference  the 
Bishop  shall  nominate  a  person  for  each  district  that  is  to  be 
supplied,  and  the  Conference  shall,  without  debate,  proceed  in 
the  choice,  the  person  nominated  being  absent;  and  if  the  person 
nominated  be  not  chosen  according  to  nomination,  the  Bishop 
shall  nominate  two  others,  one  of  whom  it  shall  be  the  duty  of 
Conference  to  choose. 

Question  2.  By  whom  shall  the  preachers  be  appointed  to 
their  stations? 

Answer.  By  the  Bishop,  with  the  advice  and  counsel  of  the 
presiding  elders/ 

The  resolution  was  taken  up  the  next  day,  whereupon 
Roszel,  of  Baltimore,  moved  "from  certain  delicacies  con- 
nected with  the  motion,  that  the  Conference  resolve  itself 
into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole."  Carried.  Bishop 
McKendree  retired  after  calling  Garrettson  to  the  chair. 

After  considering  the  subject  several  days,  the  Con- 
ference again  went  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
Bangs  moved  this  amendment: 

Question.   How  are  the  presiding  elders  chosen  and  appointed? 

Answer.  The  Bishop,  at  an  early  period  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ference, shall  nominate  an  elder  for  each  district,  and  the  Con- 
ference shall,  without  debate,  either  confirm  or  reject  such 


■General  Conference  Journal,  1816,  vol.  i,  p.  135. 


334  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

nomination.  If  the  person  or  persons  so  nominated  be  not 
elected  by  the  Conference,  the  Bishop  shall  nominate  two  others 
for  each  of  the  vacant  districts,  one  of  whom  shall  be  chosen. 
And  the  presiding  elder  so  elected  and  appointed  shall  remain 
In  office  four  years,  unless  dismissed  by  the  mutual  consent  of 
the  Bishop  and  Conference,  or  elected  to  some  other  office  by 
the  General  Conference.  But  no  presiding  elder  shall  be  re- 
moved from  office  during  the  term  of  four  years  without  his 
consent,  unless  the  reasons  for  such  removal  be  stated  to  him 
in  presence  of  the  Conference,  which  shall  decide,  without  debate, 
on  his  case.' 

After  many  hours  in  committee,  the  vote  was  taken  on 
the  motion  of  Merwin :  42  for,  and  60  against. 

A  few  days  later  the  first  part  of  the  main  question  was 
taken  up  by  the  Conference,  and  the  proposition  was  lost, 
38  in  favor,  and  63  against ;  the  second  part  was  also  lost. 
Eleven  days  afterward  Merwin  moved  that  the  following 
resolution  be  adopted : 

Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  several  Annual  Confer- 
ences in  General  Conference  assembled,  that  the  motion  relative 
to  the  election  and  appointment  of  presiding  elders  is  not  con- 
trary to  the  Constitution  of  our  Church.' 

But  this  was  lost.  Thus  ended  the  struggle  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  of  1816. 

1820 

In  the  Conference  of  1820  the  presiding-elder  question 
reappeared  wearing  an  ominous  aspect.  During  two 
days  the  strongest  men  in  the  Conference  participated  in 
prolonged  debate;  and  Cooper  and  Emory  submitted  a 
resolution,  which  was: 

That  the  Bishop,  or  the  president  of  each  Annual  Conference, 
shall  ascertain  the  number  of  presiding  elders  wanted,  and  shall 
nominate  three  times  the  number,  out  of  which  nomination  the 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1816,  vol.  i,  p.  140. 
3Ibi<l.,  1816,  vol.  i,  p.  164. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


335 


Conference  shall,  without  debate,  elect  by  ballot  the  presiding 
elders.' 

When  the  subject  was  next  under  consideration  the 
following  resolution  was  submitted  by  Bangs  and  Capers 
— two  of  the  most  influential  men  in  the  Conference — the 
first  in  favor  of  the  new  method,  the  second  against  it : 

That  three  of  the  members  who  desire  an  election  of  the 
presiding  elders,  and  an  equal  number  of  those  who  are  opposed 
to  any  change  of  our  present  plan,  be  appointed  a  committee 
to  confer  with  the  Bishops  and  the  Bishop-elect  upon  that  sub- 
ject, and  that  they  report  to  us  whether  any,  and  if  any,  what, 
alteration  might  be  made  to  conciliate  the  wishes  of  the  brethren 
upon  this  subject,  and  that  they  report  to-morrow." 

On  the  afternoon  of  May  23  the  committee  reported  as 
follows : 

The  committee  appointed  to  confer  with  the  Bishops  on  a 
plan  to  conciliate  the  wishes  of  the  brethren  on  the  subject  of 
choosing  presiding  elders,  recommend  to  the  Conference  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions,  to  be  inserted  in  their 
proper  place  in  our  Discipline: 

"Resolved,  ...  1.  That  whenever,  in  any  Annual  Conference, 
there  shall  be  a  vacancy  or  vacancies  in  the  office  of  presiding 
elder,  in  consequence  of  his  period  of  service  of  four  years 
having  expired,  or  the  Bishop  wishing  to  remove  any  presiding 
elder,  or  by  death,  resignation,  or  otherwise,  the  Bishop  or  presi- 
dent of  the  Conference,  having  ascertained  the  number  wanted 
from  any  of  these  causes,  shall  nominate  three  times  the  number, 
out  of  which  the  Conference  shall  elect  by  ballot,  without  debate, 
the  number  wanted;  provided,  when  there  Is  more  than  one 
wanted  not  more  than  three  at  a  time  shall  be  nominated,  nor 
more  than  one  at  a  time  elected;  provided,  also,  that  in  case  of 
any  vacancy  or  vacancies  in  the  office  of  presiding  elder  in  the 
interval  of  any  Annual  Conference,  the  Bishop  shall  have  au- 
thority to  fill  the  said  vacancy  or  vacancies  until  the  ensuing 
Annual  Conference. 

"Resolved,  ...  2.    That  the  presiding  elders  be,  and  hereby 


'General  Conference  Journal.  1820,  vol.  i.  p.  213. 
sjbid..  1820,  vol.  i,  p.  218. 


336  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


are,  made  the  advisory  counsel  of  the  Bishop  or  president  of  the 

Conference  in  stationing  the  preachers." 

(Signed)  Ezekiel  Cooper, 

Stephen  G.  Roszel, 
N.  Bangs, 
J.  Wells, 
J.  Emoby, 
William  Capers.' 

The  first  resolution  was  put  to  vote  and  carried,  61  to 
25,  and  afterward  the  whole  report  was  passed.  It  was 
then  ordered  that  the  resolutions  be  recommitted  to  the 
committee  to  be  incorporated  in  the  Section  of  the  Dis- 
cipline relating  to  presiding  elders. 

Six  days  before  this  the  General  Conference  had 
decided  to  elect  but  one  General  Superintendent,  and 
Joshua  Soule  had  been  elected.  This  made  him  eligible 
for  ordination,  which  by  the  laws  of  the  Church  is  essen- 
tial to  the  making  of  a  Bishop.  Soon  after  the  passing 
of  the  resolution  legalizing  the  election  of  presiding 
elders,  Soule  notified  the  Conference,  that  he  did  not 
consider  himself  bound  by  that  law,  and  the  following 
resolution  was  submitted : 

Whereas,  Brother  Joshua  Soule,  Bishop-elect,  has  signified  in 
his  letter  to  the  episcopacy,  which  letter  was  read  in  open  Con- 
ference, that  if  he  be  ordained  Bishop  he  will  not  hold  himself 
bound  to  be  governed  by  a  certain  resolution  of  this  General 
Conference  relative  to  the  nomination  and  election  of  presiding 
elders;  therefore, 

Resolved,  .  .  .  That  the  Bishops  be  earnestly  requested  by 
this  Conference  to  defer  or  postpone  the  ordination  of  the  said 
Joshua  Soule  until  he  gives  satisfactory  explanations  to  this  Con- 
ference.^ 

The  vote  on  this  was  taken  by  ballot,  and  stood  43  to 
43.  A  second  vote  produced  the  same  result.  The  pre- 
siding Bishop,  Roberts,  refused  to  give  the  casting  vote, 

'General  Conference  Journal,  1820,  vol.  i,  p.  221. 
=Ibid.,  1820,  vol.  i.  p.  230. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


337 


declaring  the  motion  lost  for  lack  of  a  majority.  Soule 
presented  a  paper  containing  bis  resignation  of  the  oflBce 
of  Bishop,  and  in  the  afternoon  he  asked  for  a  prompt 
decision,  upon  which  the  Conference  by  vote  declined, 
stating  that  it  would  not  express  its  decision  before  the 
next  morning.  Finally,  Soule  again  stated  his  purpose 
to  resign,  and  his  resignation  was  accepted. 

Near  the  close  of  the  Conference  a  motion  was  adopted, 
after  much  debate: 

That  the  rule  passed  at  this  Conference  respecting  the  nomi- 
nation and  election  of  presiding  elders  be  suspended  until  the 
next  General  Conference,  and  that  the  Superintendents  be,  and 
they  are  hereby  directed,  to  act  under  the  old  rule  respecting  the 
appointment  of  presiding  elders.' 

1824 

The  subject  again  came  up  in  1824,  when  David  Young 
offered  the  following  resolution : 

Whereas,  A  majority  of  the  Annual  Conferences  have  judged 
the  resolutions  making  presiding  elders  elective,  and  which 
were  passed  and  then  suspended  at  the  last  General  Conference, 
unconstitutional;  therefore, 

Resolved,  .  .  .  That  the  said  resolutions  are  not  of  authority, 
and  shall  not  be  carried  into  effect.' 

It  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  03  in  favor  and  61  against. 

A  day  or  two  afterward  the  Conference  proceeded  to 
the  election  of  two  General  Superintendents.  One  hun- 
dred and  twenty-eight  votes  were  cast,  of  which  Joshua 
Soule  received  G4;  William  Beauchamp,  62;  Elijah  Hed- 
ding,  61 ;  John  Emory,  59.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Soule 
had  only  one  more  vote  for  the  episcopacy  than  the 
number  of  votes  sustaining  the  foregoing  resolution,  and 
that  Hedding.  who  was  a  thorough  believer  in  the  consti- 
tutionality of  electing  presiding  elders  by  the  Annual 

'  General  Conference  Journal,  1820,  vol.  i,  p.  235. 
'Ibid..  1824,  vol.  i,  p.  278. 


338  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Conference,  had  exactly  the  same  number  of  votes  as  had 
been  cast  against  this  declaration  of  unconstitutionality. 
On  the  second  vote  Soule  had  one  more  than  he  had  on 
the  first  ballot,  and  Hedding  three  more.  Soule  on  this 
occasion  was  declared  elected,  and  was  duly  ordained. 
It  was  finally  moved: 

That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  the  sus- 
pended resolutions,  making  the  presiding  elder  elective  .  .  .  are 
considered  as  unfinished  business,  and  are  neither  to  be  inserted 
in  the  revised  form  of  the  Discipline  nor  to  be  carried  into 
operation  before  the  next  General  Conference.^ 

1828 

The  General  Conference  of  1828  took  the  following 
action  on  the  same: 

Resolved,  .  .  .  That  the  resolutions  commonly  called  the  sus- 
pended resolutions,  rendering  the  presiding  elders  elective  .  .  ., 
and  which  were  referred  to  this  Conference  by  the  last  General 
Conference  as  unfinished  business,  and  reported  to  us  at  this 
Conference,  be,  and  the  same  are,  hereby  rescinded  and  made 
void.' 

This  was  carried — by  what  majority  is  not  recorded. 
Later  another  resolution  was  offered : 

That  the  first  question  and  answer  in  Section  five  of  our  Form 
of  Discipline,  relating  to  the  appointment  and  duties  of  presiding 
elders,  be  altered  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

"Question.  How  shall  the  presiding  elders  be  chosen  and 
stationed? 

"Answer.  Each  Annual  Conference  shall  elect  its  own  pre- 
siding elders  for  its  respective  districts,  and  the  presiding  elders 
when  so  chosen  shall  be  an  efficient  council  to  assist  the  Bishops 
in  the  appointments  of  the  preachers  to  their  several  circuits  and 
stations." 

This  was  at  once  laid  on  the  table. 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1824,  vol.  i,  p.  297. 
Hbid..  1828,  vol.  i,  p.  232. 


CHAPTER  XLII 


The  Presiding  Eldership  (Continued) 

To  the  reader  thus  far  nothing  on  this  subject  has  been 
revealed  that  would  imply  a  mental  or  moral  earthquake, 
but  such  was  the  case.  No  convulsion  in  the  Church, 
except  that  which  split  the  denomination  in  1844,  has 
been  as  great  as  this.  The  evidence  of  this  proposition 
is  here  to  be  adduced. 

On  May  27,  1820,  a  protest  was  sent  to  the  Bishops 
against  entering  into  another  election  to  the  episcopacy. 
This  was  signed  by  thirty  members.  Paine  had  the 
original  paper,  when  he  was  writing  his  Life  and  Times 
of  BisJiop  McKendrcc.  It  was  in  the  handwriting  of 
Nathan  Bangs,  with  signatures  of  many  prominent 
members  of  the  New  York,  New  England,  Genesee,  and 
Philadelphia  Conferences  attached.  The  reasons  which 
they  assigned  for  nonelection  were  the 

agitations  created  by  the  recent  election  and  resignation,  and 
the  excitement  growing  out  of  the  suspension  of  the  presiding 
elder  resolutions,  producing  such  a  state  of  feeling  as  precluded 
the  deliberation  necessary  to  such  an  act.  They  suggest  that 
"it  would  be  placing  any  man  in  a  very  hazardous  situation  to 
put  him,  at  this  time,  into  the  episcopal  chair."  They  also  com- 
plain of  the  majority  for  the  manner  in  which  they  secured  the 
suspension  of  the  presiding  elder  resolutions  "on  yesterday,  by 
obtaining  the  signatures  of  the  said  majority."  Paine  apparently 
condenses  the  rest  of  the  protests  and  proceeds,  that  now  they 
are  so  leagued  together  that  they  can  and  will  carry  any  meas- 
ure they  choose,  however  obnoxious  to  the  feelings  and  views  of 
the  minority.  They  therefore  say  [Paine  quotes  from  the  pro- 
test]: "We  most  earnestly  wish  the  present  session  to  come  to 
a  close"  The  fact  is,  the  majority  would  have  voted  for  no  one 
except  Joshua  Soule,a.nd  as  that,  under  the  existing  circumstances, 
339 


340  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

would  have  been  aflBicting  to  him,  and  perhaps  add  to  the  un- 
pleasant agitation  of  the  Conference,  there  was  a  general  in- 
clination to  put  off  the  election,  if  it  could  be  done  without  too 
serious  detriment  to  the  work.  When,  therefore,  the  two  effective 
Superintendents  [George  and  Roberts]  came  forward  and  pro- 
posed to  undertake  the  task  for  the  succeeding  four  years,  with 
only  such  assistance  as  the  senior  Bishop  might  be  able  to  give 
them,  the  proposition  was  gladly  concurred  in.^ 

cooper's  account  and  estimate 

Ezekiel  Cooper  says,  concerning  the  result  of  the  Com- 
promise resolutions : 

The  above  resolutions  each  of  the  committee  pledged  himself 
to  support  as  the  act  and  deed  of  them  all  jointly;  and  this 
was  agreeably  to  the  earnest  request  of  Bishop  George,  who  was 
present  when  the  report  was  agreed  upon  and  signed.  The  re- 
port was  opposed  by  a  few;  but  the  resolutions,  as  reported, 
were  adopted  by  a  majority  of  61  to  25  votes — considerably  more 
than  two  thirds.  ...  It  was  now  apparent  that  more  love,  unity, 
and  brotherly  kindness  prevailed  than  at  any  other  period  during 
the  sitting  of  the  Conference.  .  .  . 

But,  unfortunately,  this  pleasing  state  of  things  continued 
only  a  few  days,  when  the  senior  Superintendent,  Bishop  Mc- 
Kendree,  came  into  Conference — which  he  seldom  attended  on 
account  of  indisposition — and,  with  an  apparent  distress  and  pain- 
ful displeasure  in  his  appearance  and  in  his  speech,  addressed 
the  Conference  in  a  melancholy  and  alarming  introduction 
by  observing  that  he  was  the  bearer  of  bad  or  sad  tidings,  and 
had  a  disagreeable  communication  to  make.  .  .  .  After  a  number 
of  preliminary  observations  verbally  made,  tending  to  excite 
surprise  and  alarm,  as  though  some  awful  intelligence  was  about 
to  be  divulged,  and  which  made  some  of  the  preachers,  in  em- 
phatic whispers,  ask  each  other,  with  much  pathos  and  apparent 
solicitude,  "What  is  the  matter?  What  is  it?  What  does  he 
allude  to?"  he  presented  a  paper  addressed  to  the  episcopacy, 
from  J.  Soule,  Bishop-elect,  which  was  read  in  open  Conference, 
signifying  in  plain  terms,  that  if  he  were  consecrated  and  set 
apart  to  the  office  of  Superintendent  or  Bishop  in  the  Church, 
he  would  not  hold  himself  bound  to  be  governed  by  the  decision 


'Paine'a  Life  and  Times  of  Bishop  McKendree.  vol.  i,  p.  437. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


341 


and  resolution  of  the  General  Conference  relative  to  the  nomina- 
tion and  election  of  presiding  elders,  and  substantially  protested 
against  the  resolution  and  rule  passed  by  the  Conference,  as  in 
his  opinion,  unconstitutional,  and  that  he  could  not,  in  con- 
science, execute  or  comply  with  it.  .  .  . 

This  produced  a  great  sensation,  much  excitement,  and  sur- 
prise. The  paper  containing  the  protest,  being  addressed  to  the 
episcopacy,  though  read  to  the  Conference,  was  not  suffered  to 
remain  in  possession  of  the  Conference,  but  was  withdrawn  by 
the  senior  Bishop,  who  subjoined  a  number  of  remarks  of  his 
own  in  support  of  the  doctrine  advanced  by  the  Bishop-elect, 
intimating,  in  plain  terms,  that  he  knew  of  no  tribunal  to  test 
and  determine  the  constitutionality  of  the  proceedings  of  the 
General  Conference,  excepting  the  episcopacy,  and  recommended 
the  repeal  or  suspension  of  the  rule  for  the  election  of  presiding 
elders  at  least  for  four  years,  declaring  it,  in  his  opinion,  un- 
constitutional, and  not  obligatory  on  the  Bishops  to  enforce  or 
submit  to  it.  This,  in  the  estimation  of  many,  was  a  high  and 
unjustifiable  ground  for  a  Bishop  and  Bishop-elect  to  take.  But, 
even  if  the  doctrine  were  correct,  two  out  of  three  of  the  epis- 
copacy had  admitted  the  act  to  be  a  constitutional  one,  and, 
therefore,  settled.  .  .  . 

The  Bishop-elect  declared  he  had  no  explanations  to  give,  but 
had  said  what  he  meant,  and  meant  what  he  said,  and  renewed 
his  declaration,  which  went,  as  was  conceived,  to  put  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  and  their  resolutions  at  defiance,  if  they  did 
not  comport  with  his  opinion  and  constructions  of  the  constitu- 
tionality of  what  was  done.  .  .  .  Immediately  a  motion  was  made 
by  John  Collins  to  reconsider  the  resolutions  of  the  Conference 
on  the  election  of  presiding  elders,  with  the  avowed  intention  to 
reverse  or  suspend  what  had  been  done;  upon  which  a  disa- 
greeable debate  ensued,  in  the  course  of  which  a  number  of  in- 
flammatory observations  were  made,  which  were  considered  un- 
kind, ungenerous,  and  illiberal.  .  .  .  After  a  warm,  confused 
debate,  which  produced  great  excitement,  tending  to  sow  the 
seeds  of  discord  and  to  impair  and  destroy  the  peace  and  union 
of  the  brethren,  the  question  for  reconsideration  was  taken  by 
ballot,  and  lost.  .  .  . 

The  Bishop-elect  and  some  others,  as  coadjutors  to  the  senior 
Bishop,  in  their  great  efforts  to  maintain  an  undue  episcopal 
power,  appeared  to  have  exerted  all  their  ingenuity  and  in- 
fluence in  and  out  of  the  Conference;  and  it  appeared  they  had 


342  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

gained  over  at  least  twenty  members  who  had  voted  for  the 
election  of  presiding  elders  on  the  compromise  agreed  upon.  .  .  . 

Under  these  circumstances  two  protests  had  been  prepared 
and  signed;  the  one,  against  the  alarming  doctrine  set  up  in 
support  of  the  episcopal  power — that  the  Bishops  had  authority 
to  overthrow  and  put  at  defiance  the  decisions  of  a  General  Con- 
ference, under  a  pretense  of  unconstitutionality  which  they  as- 
sumed the  right  of  determining;  the  other,  against  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  Bishop-elect,  provided  he  persisted  in  maintaining  a 
doctrine  so  repugnant  to  the  prerogatives,  rights,  and  privileges 
of  the  Conferences.^ 

In  this  paper  which  was  "designed  originally  to  be  issued 
from  the  press,  but  withheld,  probably  to  avoid  an  increase 
of  the  excitement  which  prevailed  throughout  the  Church 
after  the  adjournment  of  the  General  Conference,"  and 
which  was  printed  about  sixty  years  later  in  Light  on 
Early  Methodism,  Cooper  closes : 

Therefore,  in  the  fear  of  God,  we  do  most  seriously,  sin- 
cerely, and  conscientiously  protest  against  the  arbitrary  pro- 
ceedings of  those  forty-five  members  as  unjust,  ungenerous,  and 
unscriptural,  and  as  not  being  obligatory  or  binding  upon  us  or 
the  Annual  Conferences,  or  any  other  free  and  independent  men. 
And  we  do  also  most  solemnly  protest  against  the  high-toned 
doctrine  set  up  and  advanced:  that  the  episcopacy  are  to  judge 
of  the  constitutionality  of  the  proceedings  of  a  General  Con- 
ference; and  that  their  judgment  or  opinion  is  to  overthrow, 
make  void,  suspend,  and  put  at  defiance  the  decisions  and  pro- 
ceedings of  a  General  Conference.  And  we  do  further  most 
solemnly  protest  against  the  precedent  or  example  of  delegates 
of  the  Annual  Conferences,  in  General  Conference  assembled, 
passively  surrendering  their  own  judgments,  and  implicitly 
yielding  themselves  to  be  controlled,  governed,  and  directed  into 
this  or  that  particular  course  or  measure  by  the  mere  dictate  or 
mandate  of  a  Bishop  or  Bishops,  as  though  such  Bishop  or 
Bishops  were  infallible,  or  as  if  such  delegates  had  not  sagacity, 
liberty,  or  independence  sufficient  to  judge  for  themselves.  And 
■we  do  furthermore  protest,  in  the  most  solemn  and  decided 
terms,  against  the  servile  surrender  of  our  rights,  liberties,  and 

» Lioht  on  Early  Methodism,  pp.  301-304. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


343 


privileges  to  any  ecclesiastical  domination  whatever;  but  that, 
on  the  contrary,  it  is  our  duty  to  God,  to  our  brethren,  to  the 
Church  of  Christ,  and  to  ourselves,  by  all  lawful  and  righteous 
means,  to  maintain  our  rights,  liberties,  and  privileges,  civil  and 
religious,  as  citizens  and  Christians,  in  peace,  union,  and 
brotherly-kindness,  if  we  possibly  can,  but  otherwise  if  we  must. 
And  if  necessity  be  forced  upon  us,  "To  your  tents,  O  Israel!"' 

This  is  almost,  if  not  quite,  equal  to  the  Declaration 
of  Independence. 

The  instability  of  temper  that  accompanied  all  these 
debates  requires  the  assumption  of  a  deep  undertow 
which  carried  the  minds  of  men  hither  and  thither.  The 
influence  of  the  senior  Bishop  (McKendree)  was  great. 
Entering  the  episcopacy  with  modesty,  if  not  with  diffi- 
dence, he  gradually  approximated  to  the  regime  of 
Asbury.  By  this  time  there  was  added  to  his  tempera- 
ment the  irritation  of  a  complication  of  chronic  diseases, 
brought  on  by  his  exhausting  labors  for  God  and  the 
Church,  and  accentuated  by  rapidly  approaching  old  age. 

Right  or  wrong  as  to  the  issue  involved,  it  is  clear  that 
Bishop  McKendree  fell  into  a  perilous  error  in  declaring 
that  if  the  General  Conference  passed  the  resolution,  he 
would  declare  himself  under  no  obligation  to  enforce  it 
or  to  enjoin  it  on  others  to  do  so.  Had  he  been  in  the 
vigor  of  his  life  and  had  uttered  such  a  menace,  he  might 
have  raised  a  rebellion  which  would  have  ended  in  his 
expulsion  or  a  great  secession  from  the  denomination. 

Had  he  appealed  to  the  body  to  postpone  the  considera- 
tion of  the  matter,  or  if  he  had  asked  permission,  as 
Asbury  did  on  certain  important  occasions,  to  give  to 
the  General  Conference  his  opinions,  surely  the  larger 
part  of  his  opponents  would  have  consented.  As  it  was, 
abundant  evidence  exists  that  the  denomination  was  in 
peril  of  division. 

Bishop  McKendree  sent  an  epistolary  address  to  all 

^Light  on  Early  Methodism,  pp.  307.  308. 


344  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

the  Annual  Conferences.  This  was  fully  within  his 
rights.  In  that,  he  said  that  "the  change  under  considera- 
tion would  completely  destroy  the  plan  of  our  General 
Superintendency" ;  -but  he  expressed  himself  willing,  if 
the  Conferences  were  to  vote  for  it,  to  be  satisfied,  and 
therefore  he  would  "advise  them  to  adopt  such  measure 
as  in  their  judgment  they  deemed  most  prudent  by  which 
to  accomplish  the  adoption  of  the  change  proposed  in 
the  resolutions  and  conformable  to  the  provision  in  the 
sixth  Article  of  the  Constitution" — not  that  he  believed 
the  change  would  be  an  improvement  of  our  system  of 
government,  or  that  it  would  fully  meet  the  expectations 
of  its  advocates,  but  as  "an  accommodating  measure  in 
regard  to  the  utility  of  which  men  equally  good  and  wise 
in  some  degree  may  differ  in  opinion." 

No  one  familiar  with  the  career  of  William  McKen- 
dree — his  self-denial,  his  constant  labor,  his  devotion  to 
Methodism — can  imagine  that  his  motives  were  tainted 
with  a  desire  for  personal  ascendency.  But  he  had 
reason  to  think  and  feel  that,  in  the  providence  of  God, 
he  was  the  defender  of  Methodism  and  the  protector  of 
the  Constitution  of  which  he  was  one  of  the  authors. 
He  was  ill ;  he  realized  that  his  working  days  were  over, 
and  wished  to  feel  and  know  before  he  died  that  his  view 
was  entrenched,  and  that  his  successors  in  the  episco- 
pacy should  have  the  power  to  call  a  halt  when  they 
thought  they  saw  danger  ahead.  But  he  who  essays  to 
give  impartial  history  must  weigh  words,  actions,  events, 
methods,  and  times. 

In  this  matter  Soule  acted  well  within  his  bounds.  He 
was  elected  before  the  Conference  had  decided  to  take 
from  the  episcopacy  the  power  of  choosing  and  appoint- 
ing presiding  elders,  and  give  it  to  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences; and  he  frankly  informed  the  General  Conference, 
that,  if  ordained,  he  could  not  conscientiously  submit 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


345 


to  that  change  or  enforce  it.  Also  tendered  his  resig- 
nation, a  sacrifice  seldom  paralleled. 

BANGS'S  SUMMARY  OF  THE  DEBATE 

Bangs  says  of  some  of  the  speeches: 

Perhaps  a  greater  amount  of  talent  was  never  brought  to  bear 
on  any  question  ever  brought  before  the  General  Conference 
than  was  elicited  from  both  sides  of  the  house  in  the  discussion 
of  this  resolution.  Some  of  the  speeches  were  deep,  pungent,  and 
highly  argumentative,  the  speakers  throwing  their  whole  souls 
into  the  subject,  and  winding  themselves  up  to  the  highest  pitch 
of  impassioned  eloquence,  often  concluding  with  a  tremendous 
appeal  to  the  understandings  and  consciences  of  their  antago- 
nists, both  sides  invoking  the  future  prosperity  of  the  Church  as 
an  auxiliary  to  their  arguments.' 

Bangs  also  says: 

Those  in  favor  of  the  change  alleged  that  it  is  more  in  con- 
formity to  the  genius  of  the  American  people  to  have  a  voice  in 
the  election  of  those  who  are  to  rule  over  them,  and  therefore 
the  preachers  ought  to  have  a  choice  in  the  selection  of  the 
presiding  elders.  So  long  [he  continues]  as  they  were  appointed 
by  the  Bishop  it  necessarily  augmented  the  power  of  the  epis- 
copacy. .  .  .  Hence  the  preacher,  let  him  be  oppressed  ever  so 
much  in  his  appointment,  has  no  medium  of  redress  within  his 
reach,  as  his  case  is  represented  to  the  appointing  power  through 
an  ecclesiastical  officer  over  whom  he  has  no  control,  and  who  is 
completely  in  the  Bishop's  confidence  and  at  his  disposal.  These 
things,  it  was  contended,  were  incompatible  with  the  natural 
and  civil  rights  of  freedom.  ...  It  was  pleaded  that,  however 
wise  and  good  the  Bishop  might  be,  it  was  impossible  for  him  to 
have  that  knowledge  of  the  local  state  of  the  people  and  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  preachers.  .  .  .  and  hence  he  assumed  a  re- 
sponsibility for  which  he  could  not  rationally  account. 

And  then  to  give  one  man  the  complete  control  over  five  hun- 
dred others,  many  of  whom  may  be  equal  to  him  in  age  and 
experience,  and  perhaps  also  in  wisdom,  learning,  and  goodness 
.  .  .  was  an  anomaly  in  legislation  and  an  absurdity  in  prac- 
tice. .  .  . 

That,  however  safely  this  prerogative  might  be  exercised  by 


^History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  ii.  p.  334. 


346  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Bishop  Asbury,  especially  in  the  infancy  of  the  Church,  it  had 
now  become  impossible.  .  .  for  a  Bishop  to  exercise  such  a  tre- 
mendous power  intelligibly  and  safely  to  all  concerned.  .  .  .  The 
example  of  our  British  brethren  was  cited,  who  .  .  .  had  given 
the  power  of  stationing  preachers  to  a  committee,  and  then  they 
were  allowed  to  appeal  to  the  Conference. 

To  overcome  these  arguments  those  who  upheld  the 
l)resiciing  eldership  contended  after  this  manner : 

The  Church  of  Christ  was  founded,  in  some  respects,  upon 
very  different  principles  from  those  on  which  civil  governments 
rested,  and,  therefore,  though  analogous  in  some  particulars,  yet 
in  others  the  contrast  was  so  obvious  as  to  neutralize  all  analog- 
ical arguments.  That  though  the  people  elected  their  legisla- 
tors, President,  and  governors,  yet  most  of  the  executive  officers 
were  appointed  by  the  President.  .  .  . 

It  was  admitted  that  they  strengthened  the  hands  of  the 
episcopacy,  yet  being  appointed  by  him  saved  the  Church  from 
an  evil  more  to  be  dreaded  than  mere  episcopal  power,  and  that 
was  an  electioneering  spirit,  which  must  keep  the  Conference  in 
perpetual  agitations.  .  .  .  Hence,  though  a  preacher  might,  either 
from  inadvertence  or  design,  be  injured  in  his  appointment,  yet 
to  make  the  presiding  elder  dependent  on  the  choice  of  an  Annual 
Conference  might  make  him  fear  to  do  his  duty,  in  respect  to 
enforcing  discipline,  and  in  exacting  vigilance  from  those  under 
him  in  the  discharge  of  duty.  .  .  . 

As  to  natural  and  civil  rights,  it  was  retorted,  that  though  a 
Methodist  preacher  retains  them  as  a  citizen,  yet  the  moment  he 
entered  the  itinerancy,  he  becomes  subject  to  ecclesiastical  re- 
straints which,  though  not  incompatible  with  his  rights  as  a 
freeman,  were,  nevertheless,  essential  to  the  preservation  and 
efficient  operation  of  the  itinerancy.* 

1876 

This  vexed  question  came  up  for  determination  in  the 
General  Conference  of  187G,  by  a  report  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Itinerancy,  M.  D'C.  Crawford,  chairman. 
There  was  also  a  report  of  the  minority,  of  which  William 
Eif'e  was  chairman. 


•Bangs,  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  vol.  ii,  pp.  338-340. 


THE  PRESIDING  ELDERSHIP 


347 


The  minority  report  set  forth  that  to  elect  presiding 
elders  would  not  be  unconstitutional,  and  that  it  would 
be  a  benefit  to  the  Church.  This  report  was  lost,  195 
to  123. 

The  majority  report  maintained  the  proposition  that 
it  would  be  unconstitutional  for  the  General  Conference 
to  take  from  the  Bishops  the  power  of  appointing  pre- 
siding elders,  and  determining  their  number,  and  the 
number  of  the  districts;  and  that  if  it  were  not  so,  the 
change  would  "tend  to  destroy  the  plan." 

George  G.  Reraolds  offered  as  a  substitute  for  a  part 
of  this  report  a  proposal  to  make  a  constitutional  test, 
and  if  the  Kestrictive  Rule  were  altered  so  as  to  allow 
the  Annual  Conferences  to  determine  the  number  of  dis- 
tricts, he  proposed  a  working  plan.  This  motion  was 
finally  adopted,  144  to  111.  And  the  item  (as  amended 
by  the  substitute  of  Reynolds  by  ISfi  yeas  to  07  nays), 
and  the  report  as  a  whole,  was  adopted. 

Thus  ended  the  last  considerable  attempt  to  remove 
from  the  episcopacy  the  power  and  responsibility  of 
appointing  presiding  elders. 


CHAPTER  XLIII 


Proposed  Veto  Power  for  Bishops 

An  effort  was  made,  after  the  agitation  concerning  the 
episcopacy  in  the  General  Conference  of  1820,  to  give 
power  to  the  Superintendent  or  Superintendents  to  ex- 
amine any  resolution  or  motion  for  altering  any  part  of 
the  Constitution,  and  if  they,  or  a  majority  of  them, 
should  judge  it  unconstitutional,  to  return  it  with  their 
objections. 

This  was  introduced  on  May  27,  when  Stephen  G. 
Roszel  and  J.  B.  Finley  presented,  for  consideration  and 
action,  the  following  resolution  on  the  veto  power  of 
the  Bishops : 

Whereas,  A  difference  has  arisen  in  the  General  Conference 
about  the  constitutionality  of  a  certain  resolution  passed  con- 
cerning the  appointment  of  presiding  elders;  and, 

Whereas,  There  does  not  appear  to  be  any  proper  tribunal  to 
judge  of  and  determine  such  a  question;  and, 

Whereas,  It  appears  important  to  us  that  some  course  should 
be  taken  to  determine  this  business;  therefore. 

Resolved,  .  .  .  That  we  will  advise,  and  hereby  do  advise  the 
several  Annual  Conferences  to  pass  such  resolutions  as  will 
enable  the  next  General  Conference  so  to  alter  the  Constitution 
that  whenever  a  resolution  or  motion  which  goes  to  alter  any 
part  of  our  Discipline  is  passed  by  the  General  Conference  It 
shall  be  examined  by  the  Superintendent  or  Superintendents; 
and  if  they,  or  a  majority  of  them,  shall  judge  it  unconstitutional, 
they  shall,  within  three  days  after  its  passage,  return  it  to  the 
Conference  with  their  objections  to  it  in  writing.  And  whenever 
a  resolution  is  so  returned  the  Conference  shall  reconsider  it; 
and  if  it  pass  by  a  majority  of  two  thirds,  it  shall  be  constitu- 
tional and  pass  into  a  law,  notwithstanding  the  objections  of  the 
Superintendents;  and  if  it  be  not  returned  within  three  days, 
348 


PROPOSED  VETO  POWER  FOR  BISHOPS 


349 


it  shall  be  considered  as  not  objected  to  and  become  a  law. 
Carried.' 

The  preamble  assumes  that  "there  does  not  appear  to 
be  any  proper  tribunal  to  judge  of  and  determine  such  a 
question."  That  assumption  includes  the  episcopacy  as 
not  being  a  "proper  tribunal,''  and.  further,  that  the 
Annual  Conferences  do  not  constitute  one.  And  it 
assumes  also  that  the  General  Conference  is  not  a  "proper 
tribunal."  The  first  and  second  assumptions  are  correct; 
but,  right  or  wrong,  wise  or  unwise,  the  General  Con- 
ference was  and  is  the  only  body  to  judge  authoritatively 
constitutional  questions,  all  powers  having  been  given 
to  it  which  are  not  by  Restrictive  Rules  taken  from  it. 
The  resolution  would  empower  the  Bishops  (and  not  only 
empower,  but  necessitate  the  exercising  of  it)  "to  examine 
every  resolution  or  motion  which  goes  to  alter  any  part 
of  our  Discipline." 

Tigert  comments  wisely  upon  the  nature  of  this  propo- 
sition as  follows: 

This  measure  provided,  not  merely  a  method  by  which  the 
Bishops  might  carry  an  appeal  from  the  decisions  of  a  General 
Conference  to  a  tribunal  of  the  Annual  Conferences — which 
really  lodges  the  veto  power  in  the  body  of  the  traveling  min- 
istry— but,  in  the  strictest  sense,  clothed  the  episcopacy  with  a 
veto  power,  which  required  a  two-thirds  majority  of  the  General 
Conference  to  overcome  it.- 

As  the  General  Conference  was  nearly  equally  divided 
on  the  presiding-elder  question,  and  this  proposal  was  a 
fruit  of  that  contention,  it  is  certain  that  the  Annual 
Conferences  which  favored  the  election  of  presiding 
elders  would  vote  against  the  veto  power  to  the  Bishops, 
or  ignore  the  subject  entirely. 


'General  Conference  Journal.  1820,  vol.  i.  p.  238. 

Constitutional  History  of  American  Methodism.  Revised  Edition,  p.  354. 


350  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


A  SECOND  ATTEMPT 

There  is  no  reference  to  the  measure  of  1820  in  the 
Journal  of  1824 ;  but  in  that  Conference,  on  May  18, 
notice  was  given  that  the  following  resolution  would  be 
offered : 

Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  Annual  Conferences  in  Gen- 
eral Conference  assembled,  that  It  be  and  is  hereby  recommended 
to  the  several  Annual  Conferences  to  adopt  the  following  article 
as  a  provision  to  be  annexed  to  the  sixth  Article  of  the  "limita- 
tions and  restrictions"  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  in 
1S08,  viz.: 

"Provided  also,  that  whenever  the  delegated  General  Confer- 
ence shall  pass  any  rule  or  rules  which,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Bishops,  or  a  majority  of  them,  are  contrary  to  or  an  infringe- 
ment upon  the  above  'limitations  and  restrictions,'  or  any  one  of 
them,  such  rule  or  rules  being  returned  to  the  Conference  within 
three  days  after  their  passage,  together  with  the  objections  of 
the  Bishops  to  them,  in  writing,  the  Conference  shall  reconsider 
such  rule  or  rules,  and  if,  upon  reconsideration,  they  shall  pass 
by  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of  the  members  present,  they  shall 
be  considered  as  rules,  and  go  into  immediate  effect;  but  in 
case  a  less  majority  shall  differ  from  the  opinion  of  the  Bishops, 
and  they  continue  to  sustain  their  objections,  the  rule  or  rules 
objected  to  shall  be  laid  before  the  Annual  Conferences,  in  which 
case  the  decision  of  a  majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  Annual 
Conference  present  when  the  vote  shall  be  taken  shall  be  final. 
In  taking  the  vote  in  all  such  cases  in  the  Annual  Conferences 
the  secretaries  shall  give  a  certificate  of  the  number  of  votes, 
both  in  the  affirmative  and  negative,  and  such  certificates  shall 
be  forwarded  to  the  editor  and  general  book  steward,  who,  with 
one  or  more  of  the  Bishops,  who  may  be  present,  shall  be  a 
committee  to  canvass  the  votes  and  certify  the  result."' 

This  was  signed  by  Lovick  Pierce  and  William  Winans. 

On  May  21  the  resolution  was  taken  up.  Ostrander 
mo\ed  that  it  be  "laid  'on  the  table,"  on  which  motion 
the  Conference  divided,  and  Gl  appeared  in  favor  of  lay- 
ing the  resolution  on  the  table  and  65  against  it. 

'General  Conference  Journal.  1824,  vol.  i,  p.  267. 


PROPOSED  VETO  POWER  FOR  BISHOPS 


351 


The  following  amendment  was  then  offered  by  James 
Smith  and  N.  Bangs :  "Provided  also,  that  in  all  the  above 
votings  both  in  the  Annual  Conferences  and  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  the  vote  shall  be  taken  by  ballot,"  and 
it  was  admitted. 

In  the  afternoon,  however,  it  was  moved  by  Cooper 
and  seconded  by  Bangs,  "to  dispense  with  the  usual 
method  of  taking  the  vote  and  to  take  it  on  this  question 
by  ballot.''  The  only  explanation  of  this,  as  those  against 
the  amendment  frankly  stated,  was  to  prevent  the  con- 
centrated eyes  of  the  Bishops  upon  the  individual  voters, 
who  derived  their  appointments  from  the  Bishops.  This 
vote  was  lost,  and  when  the  question  was  taken  on  the 
resolution,  it  was  sustained,  64  voting  in  the  affirmative 
and  58  in  the  negative.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  measure 
was  carried  by  a  vote  much  less  than  two  thirds ;  a  change 
of  four  votes  would  have  negatived  it. 

Bishop  Paine,  in  The  Life  and  Times  of  Bishop  McKen- 
dree,  says: 

To  me,  the  youngest  member  of  the  body,  it  was  an  imposing 
spectacle.  Bishop  McKendree  observed  the  action  of  the  body 
with  great  solicitude.  On  Friday,  May  20,  came  up  the  "constitu- 
tional" test,  it  all  involving  constitutional  questions  only.  The 
Bishops,  anticipating  some  action  of  the  kind,  had  agreed  to 
unite,  and,  if  desired,  present  to  the  Conference  the  following 
amendment  to  the  sixth  Article  of  the  "Limitations  and  Re- 
strictions" adopted  by  the  General  Conference  in  1808. 

This  document  was  signed:  "We  recommend  the  adop- 
tion of  the  above  resolution.  W.  McKendree,  Enoch 
George,  R.  R.  Roberts,  Thomas  L.  Douglass,  William 
Capers."* 

Paine  further  says: 

Whether  the  subject  was  brought  into  the  Conference  by  the 
presentation  of  this  document  or  by  another  series  of  resolutions, 


'Vol.  ii,  DP.  32,  35,  37. 


352  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


the  writer  cannot  say;  but  the  discussion  of  the  subject  was  upon 
substantially  a  similar,  if  not  an  identical,  presentation  of  the 
question. 

Tigert  says: 

The  names  of  Douglass  and  Capers  were  doubtless  added  to 
anticipate  the  objection  that  the  Bishops  had  no  constitutional 
right  to  introduce  measures  into  the  General  Conference,  but 
it  was  found  inexpedient  or  unnecessary  to  attach  the  signatures 
of  the  Bishops  to  the  measure  as  presented  to  the  Conference; 
and  Pierce  and  Winans,  for  some  reason  now  undiscoverable, 
were  selected  to  introduce  it  instead  of  Douglass  and  Capers.' 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  second  attempt  to  trans- 
form the  Bishops  into  a  supreme  court  was  more  strenu- 
ous than  the  first.  That  simply  calls  a  halt  for  three 
days,  during  which,  or  at  the  end,  the  Bishops  present 
their  objections  in  writing  to  the  Conference,  which  shall 
reconsider  it.  If  it  be  not  returned  within  three  days, 
it  shall  be  considered  as  not  objected  to  and  become  a 
law ;  but  if  they  do  object  to  it,  and  if  the  Conference  by  a 
majority  of  two  thirds  shall  pass  it,  it  will  be  constitu- 
tional. But  the  second,  upon  the  reconsideration,  if 
passed  by  a  majority  of  two  thirds  of  the  members  pres- 
ent, they  will  be  ''considered  as  rules,  and  go  into  imme- 
diate effect;  but  in  case  a  less  majority  shall  differ  from 
the  opinion  of  the  Bishops  and  they  continue  to  sustain 
their  objections,  the  rule  or  rules  shall  be  laid  before  the 
Annual  Conferences  in  which  case  the  decision  of  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  Annual  Conference 
present  when  the  vote  shall  be  taken  shall  be  final." 

The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  1812  has  sur- 
vived and  flourished  without  any  method  of  deciding 
constitutional  questions  otherwise  than  by  the  judgment 
of  the  General  Conference. 

Whei"e  there  has  been  a  difference  of  opinion  on  a  large 

'A  ConslitutioTial  History  of  American  Episcopal  Methodism,  Revised  Edition, 
p.  357. 


PROPOSED  VETO  POWER  FOR  BISHOPS  353 


scale,  great  conservatism  has  been  observed,  as  shown  in 
the  prolonged  contests  concerning  the  establishment  of 
a  missionary  episcopacy,  lay  delegation,  and  the  admis- 
sion of  women  to  the  General  Conference.  Should  any 
General  Conference  trample  upon  the  Constitution  or 
be  generally  supposed  to  have  done  so,  those  who  believe 
it  so,  have  the  right  and  the  facilities  in  an  emergency  to 
elect  another  General  Conference  of  a  different  turn  of 
mind. 

The  diflSculties  of  1844  with  respect  to  person,  ofiSce, 
custom,  spirit,  and  location  were  unparalleled,  and  can 
never  be  reproduced. 


CHAPTER  XLIV 


"Bishops  for  Races  and  Languages" 

The  General  Conference  of  1904  received  from  its 
Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  a  report  as  follows : 

Concerning  memorials  from  the  Tennessee,  East  Tennessee, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Florida,  Mississippi,  Texas,  and 
Lexington  Conferences  requesting  the  General  Conference  to 
provide  for  the  election  of  Bishops  of  African  descent  who  shall 
be  assigned  to  the  presidency  of  Conferences  consisting  wholly 
or  chiefly  of  ministers  of  African  descent,  we  respectfully  re- 
port that: 

In  the  present  state  of  our  fundamental  law  a  constitutional 
objection  is  raised  to  the  granting  of  the  request  of  said  memo- 
rialists; but  there  having  been  referred  to  this  committee  by 
the  General  Conference  a  memorial  from  the  Rock  River  Con- 
ference to  change  the  fundamental  law  so  as  to  make  possible 
the  realization  of  the  desire  of  the  memorialists  and  to  accom- 
plish other  important  objects;  therefore, 

Resolved,  1.  That  this  General  Conference  propose  the  follow- 
ing amendment  to  the  Constitution:  To  strike  out  from  ...  of 
the  Discipline  of  1900  after  the  disjunctive  "but"  and  insert  the 
words,  "may  elect  a  Bishop  or  Bishops  for  work  among  particular 
races  and  languages,  or  for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting 
their  episcopal  jurisdiction  to  the  same  respectively,"  so  that 
the  whole  paragraph  shall  read: 

"The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part 
or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  nor  de- 
stroy the  plan  of  our  Itinerant  General  Superintendency;  but 
may  elect  a  Bishop  or  Bishops  for  work  among  particular  races 
and  languages,  or  for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting  their 
episcopal  jurisdiction  to  the  same  respectively."' 

After  extended  discussion,  the  proposed  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  was  submitted  to  the  General  Con- 
ference in  order  to  ascertain  whether  the  legal  consti- 

'General  Conference  Journal.  1904,  pp.  428,  429. 

354 


"BISHOPS  FOR  RACES  AND  LANGUAGES  '  355 


tutional  vote  of  two  thirds  of  the  members  present  and 
voting  would  be  given  for  the  change,  and  it  was  enthusi- 
astically adopted  bv  a  vote  of  517  yeas  to  27  nays. 

From  this  practical  unanimity  there  was  a  strong 
reaction.  The  European  Conferences  thought  that  any 
arrangement  for  episcopal  superintendency  other  than  the 
General  Superintendency  would  create  dissension,  lower 
the  standing  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  in- 
crease the  distaste  of  the  nations  for  what  the  enemies 
of  our  missions  in  those  ancient  countries  declared 
"unwonted"  and  "unwanted."  Others  thought  that  the 
missionary  episcopacy  now  existing  would  soon  be  dis- 
continued, and  arrangements  to  cover  that  work  would 
include  the  situation  which  the  pending  proposition  was 
expected  to  cover.  Still  others  were  of  opinion  that  there 
was  at  the  present  time  no  constitutional  difficulty  in 
electing  General  Superintendents  qualified  to  take  care 
of  the  vast  number  of  other  than  English-speaking  peoples 
on  this  continent;  and  if  they  should  be  assigned  to  one 
or  two  Conferences  other  than  those  speaking  foreign 
languages  in  this  country,  that  would  meet  the  need. 

Before  the  introduction  of  the  resolution  it  was  sup- 
posed, on  good  authority,  that  the  great  majority  of  the 
brethren  of  African  descent  would  count  it  a  genuine 
blessing.  These,  with  various  disagreements  here  and 
there,  produced  a  compound  of  indifference  and  opposi- 
tion, the  effects  of  which  are  seen  in  the  following  state- 
ment of  the  votes  of  the  Conferences,  clerical  and  lay: 

AGGREGATE  VOTE^ 

Proposition  I. — Bishops  with  Limited  Episcopal  Jurisdiction 
(Adopted  hy  the  General  Conference  of  1904.  See  Journal,  page 
410.) 

To  amend  the  Restrictive  Rule,  Discipline  of  1904,  If  46,  §  3, 
so  that  it  shall  read: 


'General  Conference  Journal,  1908,  p.  1125. 


356  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


"The  General  Conference  shall  not  change  nor  alter  any  part 
or  rule  of  our  government  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  nor  de- 
stroy the  plan  of  our  Itinerant  General  Superintendency;  but 
may  elect  a  Bishop  or  Bishops  for  work  among  particular  races 
and  languages,  or  for  any  of  our  foreign  missions,  limiting  their 
episcopal  jurisdiction  to  the  same  respectively." 

Annual  Conferences       Lay  Electoral  Conferences 

Total  Vote                  12,973  7,853 
Ayes  necessary  to 

adopt  (two  thirds)      8,049  5,236 

Ayes  Noes              Ayes  Noes 

Votes  cast  3,110  7,863  1,994  5,859 
Proposition  lost. 


PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


CHAPTER  XLV 


Beginnings  of  Organization 

Assemblies  may  be  roughly  classified  into  crowds,  audi- 
ences, and  deliberative  bodies.  Crowds  may  degenerate 
into  riots ;  audiences  into  knots  of  conversers,  and  delib^ 
erative  assemblies  into  a  scramble  for  the  floor.  Parlia- 
ments and  congresses  are  sometimes  transformed  into 
mobs.  From  the  earliest  epochs  of  civilization  it  has 
been  found  necessary  to  have  certain  rules,  and,  where 
there  are  only  the  germs  of  government,  restrictions  are 
placed  on  individual  members  in  the  general  interest  of 
the  whole  body.  The  "powwow"  of  the  Indian  and  the 
parliaments  of  enlightened  nations  have  regular  codes. 
England,  France,  Germany,  and  the  United  States  have 
long  been  building  up  and  perfecting  these  codes,  until 
they  have  almost  a  system  of  laws,  and  the  legislator  who 
does  not  understand  them  is  at  great  disadvantage. 

The  Christian  communions  are  governed  in  their  delib- 
erations by  a  system  of  rules  which  may  be  described  as 
being  in  substantial  unity,  but  with  circumstantial 
variety,  according  to  the  ruling  officers.  Abundant 
experience  has  shown  that  appeals  to  generosity,  respect 
for  order,  or  the  interests  involved  in  the  action  of  the 
body,  are  not  sufficient  to  maintain  order  even  in  religious 
assemblies.  Nor  can  mere  conventional  rules  conserve 
the  rights  of  all  and  make  possible  the  transaction  of 
business. 

As  parliaments  are  notoriously  tumultuous  in  times  of 
stress  or  political  antipathies,  they  need  stringent  laws; 
and  being  the  most  important  assemblies,  in  jniblic 
opinion,  such  rules — religious,  scientific,  financial,  profes- 

359 


360  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


sional — are  known  as  "parliamentary  law"  in  distinction 
from  ecclesiastical,  civil,  military,  and  international  law. 

The  first  Conferences,  as  to  organization  and  business, 
were  practically  conversations.  "It  was  a  religious  so- 
ciety and  not  a  Church,  and  any  member  of  any  Church 
who  would  conform  to  the  rules  and  meet  in  a  class  had 
liberty  to  continue  in  his  own  Church."  The  preacher  alone, 
with  the  General  Assistant's  indorsement,  made  the  rules. 
They  recognized  that  fact,  and  the  first  Conference  was 
introduced  to  the  public  as  follows:  "Minutes  of  some 
conversations  between  the  preachers  in  connection  with 
the  Rev.  Mr.  John  Wesley." 

1792 

In  the  first  regular  General  Conference,  that  of  1792, 
the  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to  form  rules  or  regula- 
tions for  conducting  its  business.  A  committee  was 
chosen,  consisting  of  the  oldest  preachers  and  some  that 
were  younger  in  the  work.   Lee  says: 

The  committee  was  afterward  increased,  by  adding  more 
preachers  to  it,  but,  after  all,  it  was  found  to  be  of  no  real  use; 
for  if  a  few  of  the  committee  were  opposed  to  anything  that 
was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  their  brethren,  when  the  business 
was  brought  before  the  whole  of  the  Conference  those  that  were 
dissatisfied  before  would  take  an  active  part  in  the  debates,  and 
all  the  arguments  that  had  been  brought  forward  in  the  com- 
mittee would  be  taken  up  again,  which  did  not  answer  the  end 
intended.  It  had  been  thought  that  a  committee  would  arrange 
matters  so  as  to  expedite  the  business;  but  after  trying  it,  we 
found  it  had  a  contrary  effect.  The  committee  was  then  given 
up,  and  any  preacher  was  at  liberty  to  bring  forward  any  mo- 
tion; and  the  Conference  proceeded  to  establish  or  reject  It 
according  to  the  above  regulations.^ 

One  of  the  rules  for  the  regulation  of  the  Conference 
was  this: 

It  shall  take  two  thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  Conference 


^History  of  the  Methodists,  p.  178. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  ORGANIZATION  ^61 

to  make  a  new  rule  and  abolish  an  old  one;  but  a  majority  may 
alter  or  amend  any  rule. 

Another  was: 

Each  person,  if  he  choose,  shall  have  opportunity  to  speak 
three  times  on  each  motion. 

In  the  O'Kelly  case,  under  that  rule,  "by  dividing;  the 
question,  and  then  coming  back  to  where  we  were  at  first, 
we  were  kept  on  the  subject  called  'The  Appeal'  for  two 
or  three  days." 

1800 

The  first  regularly  constructed  Code  appears  in  the 
Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1800. 

Any  person  speaking  shall  not  be  interrupted,  except  by  the 
presidents,  when  they  judge  that  he  deviates  too  much  from  the 
point;  nevertheless,  an  appeal  may  be  made  to  the  Conference 
by  any  two  members  from  the  presidents;  but  neither  the  Con- 
ference nor  the  presidents  shall  speak  to  the  point,  but  simply 
take  the  vote.  No  person  shall  have  liberty  to  appeal  above  a 
quarter  of  an  hour  at  a  time,  except  with  the  permission  of  the 
Conference;  but  still  the  Conference  shall  grant  or  prohibit 
without  debate.  If  any  person  thinks  himself  misrepresented 
by  a  speaker,  he  shall  have  a  right  to  explain,  in  as  few  words 
as  possible  after  the  speaker  has  done.  No  person  shall  speak 
oftener  than  three  times  on  any  question. 

The  sittings  of  Conference  shall  be  from  nine  to  twelve  in 
the  morning,  and  from  three  to  six  in  the  afternoon.  No  question 
shall  be  proposed  on  a  different  subject  from  that  under  debate, 
until  the  question  debated  be  decided  or  postponed.  A  secretary 
shall  be  chosen  by  the  Conference,  who  shall  keep  a  regular 
journal  of  all  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference;  which  journal 
shall  be  signed  by  the  presidents,  and  countersigned  by  the 
secretary  at  the  close  of  the  Conference.  No  motion  shall  be 
put,  except  by  the  presidents,  unless  it  be  first  delivered  at  the 
table  in  writing,  after  being  read  by  the  mover  and  seconded. 
No  old  rule  shall  be  abolished  except  by  a  majority  of  two 
thirds.  No  member  of  the  Conference  shall  leave  the  city  of 
Baltimore  until  the  Conference  adjourn,  without  first  obtaining 
leave  of  absence.    No  member  shall  leave  the  room  to  go  into 


362  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


the  city  without  leave.  The  Bishops  are  requested  to  arrange, 
and,  from  time  to  time,  to  lay  before  the  Conference  such  busi- 
ness as  they  may  judge  expedient;  provided  the  above  regulation 
does  not  affect  the  ninth  rule.  Any  member  shall  have  leave  to 
copy,  at  pleasure,  any  motion  laid  upon  the  table.^ 

Ezekiel  Cooper  moved: 

That  the  election  of  a  Bishop  shall  be  by  ballot  written  and 
put  into  the  box  or  drawer:  the  highest  upon  the  list  shall  be 
elected,  provided  there  be  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  of  the 
Conference  for  him.  But  in  case  there  be  not  a  majority  of  all 
the  votes  of  the  Conference  for  anyone,  then  the  Conference 
shall  vote  again,  and  choose  by  ballot  from  the  four  highest 
upon  the  list.  If  no  one  then  have  a  majority  of  the  whole  Con- 
ference, they  shall  vote  for  the  three  highest  of  the  four;  and  if 
neither  of  the  three  have  a  majority  of  the  whole,  the  Confer- 
ence shall  vote  for  the  two  highest  of  the  three.' 

This  was  accepted. 

The  first  vote  for  the  election  of  a  Bishop  in  1800  was 
a  tie. 

1804 

In  1804  the  following  rule  was  added  to  those  of  1800 : 

No  spectators  shall  be  admitted  but  members  of  the  society, 
and  such  as  have  introduction  by,  or  a  ticket  from,  a  member  of 
Conference. 

Questions  of  eligibility  were  discussed,  and  five  preach- 
ers were  disallowed  membership. 

General  Superintendent  Coke,  filled  with  English  ideas 
and  customs,  moved: 

That  no  regulation  or  law  should  finally  pass  the  Conference 
until  it  had  been  read  at  three  distinct  sittings,  and  has  received 
the  approbation  of  the  Conference  each  time. 

The  motion  was  lost  by  a  majority  of  9,  there  being  47 
ayes  and  56  nays.   Nothing  daunted,  he  moved : 

That  no  regulation  or  law  shall  finally  pass  this  Conference 
until  it  has  been  read  at  three  distinct  sittings. 

>G«ieral  Conference  Journal.  1800,  vol.  i,  pp.  31,  32. 
Ibid.,  1800,  vol.  i,  p.  35. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  ORGANIZATION 


363 


This  was  also  lost. 
Another  motion  was: 

That  the  rule  which  provides  that  no  law  be  abolished  but  by 
a  vote  of  two  thirds  of  the  Conference,  be  reconsidered. 

This  was  done,  but  the  motion,  that  it  be  rescinded,  was 
lost  b^'  a  majority  of  one.  Jesse  Lee  moved  that  no 
names  of  members  be  used  in  debate,  which  did  not  pre- 
vail. Another  moved  that  "every  motion  lie  on  the 
table  one  sitting  before  debate,"  but  this  was  also  lost. 

On  the  third  day  it  was  moved  that  "no  person  be 
admitted  as  a  spectator  during  the  sitting  of  the  General 
Conference."  This  was  passed,  but  in  the  same  session 
another  motion  prevailed  that  "all  the  official  members 
of  our  Church  should  be  admitted  as  spectators." 

In  1804  a  second  tie  appeared.  It  was  on  the  question 
whether  there  should  be  an  ordination  of  local  elders, 
and  the  votes  were  44  to  44.  Coke  did  not  give  the  cast- 
ing vote,  but  moved  that  it  "lie  over,  as  unfinished  busi- 
ness, till  the  next  General  Conference." 


CHAPTER  XLVI 


Progressive  Enlargement 

During  the  Conference  of  1808  several  additions  were 
made  to  the  small  list  of  rules  under  which  it  began 
proceedings. 

Immediately  after  the  secretary  and  assistant  secre- 
tary were  elected  "the  judgment  of  the  Conference  was 
called  for  respecting  the  membership."  It  was  voted  that 
"no  preacher  has  a  right  to  a  seat  in  this  Conference  who 
has  not  traveled,  under  the  direction  of  the  yearly  Con- 
ference, four  full  years." 

1812 

In  1812  there  was  a  situation  to  be  met  with  respect 
to  reserve  delegates,  this  being  the  first  time  they  had 
appeared.  Three  extra  members  had  been  elected  by  the 
New  England  Conference,  and  "after  some  conversation," 
quaintly  worded,  a  motion  was  made :  "Are  our  brethren 
from  the  New  England  Conference  entitled  to  their  seats 
in  this  Conference?"  On  taking  a  vote,  it  was  found 
that  56  were  in  the  affirmative  and  22  against.  Therefore 
the  reserves  took  seats  in  the  place  of  those  who  had  failed 
to  appear. 

A  suggestive  rule  was  passed  in  this  General  Confer- 
ence. It  was  that  "a  secretary  be  appointed  who  is  not 
a  member  of  this  Conference." 

A  committee  of  seven  of  the  most  influential  members 
were  selected,  one  from  each  Conference,  to  form  rules 
"for  the  regulation  of  this  Conference."  These  were 
Ezekiel  Cooper,  N.  Snethen,  Philip  Bruce,  George  Picker- 
ing, Freeborn  Garrettson,  Lewis  Myers,  L.  Blackman, 
and  William  B.  Lacy. 

364 


PROGRESSIVE  ENLARGEMENT 


365 


Under  the  discussion  of  the  "rules  and  orders  for  gov- 
erning the  Conference"  this  important  question  was  de- 
cided :  "Shall  the  Conference  have  power  to  resolve  itself 
into  a  committee  'of  the  whole'  This  was  carried  by  a 
large  majority.  * 

Lee  moved  that  "no  old  rule  shall  be  abolished  without  a 
majority  of  two  thirds/'  but  the  motion  was  lost.  He 
also  moved  that  "the  traveling  preachers,  who  are  in  full 
connection,  have  liberty  to  sit  in  this  house  as  listeners 
during  Conference."  This  passed  by  a  large  majority,  and 
these  were  allotted  seats  in  the  gallery,  but  were  "sub- 
ject to  the  orders  of  Conference." 

Immediately  after  this  a  motion  to  allow  traveling 
preachers  not  in  full  connection  to  be  admitted  as  specta- 
tors was  lost  by  a  large  majority,  as  was  also  a  motion 
that  the  local  preachers  be  admitted. 

Bishop  McKendree's  address  was  referred  to  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

When  the  report  of  the  Coiiimittee  of  the  Whole  relat- 
ing to  the  episcopacy  was  called  up,  it  was  referred  to  a 
committee  of  eight.  It  was  then  moved  that  this  com- 
mittee be  appointed  by  the  Conference;  which  proceeded 
to  elect      hallot  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy. 

The  rules  of  the  last  General  Conference  were  read  one 
by  one,  and  passed  with  such  amendments  as  the  Confer- 
ence judged  expedient.  A  futile  attempt  was  made  to 
strike  out  the  34th  Article,  which  concerned  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole.  Some  quaint  phrases  w^ere  used ;  for 
example,  S.  G.  Roszel  moved  to  "concur  in  the  gross." 

The  General  Conference  closed  in  a  peculiar  manner: 

J.  Early  called  up  his  motion,  to  make  the  following  addition 
to  the  fourteenth  section,  23d  page  of  our  Discipline:  "If  a  mem- 
ber of  our  Church  be  convicted  of  giving  treats  at  elections 
directly  or  indirectly,  he  shall  first  be  reproved  by  the  senior 
minister  or  preacher  of  his  circuit;  and  if  afterward  he  persists 


366  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

in  such  pernicious  practices,  he  shall  be  expelled  from  the 
Church." 

Moved  and  carried  to  adjourn  until  May  1,  1816,  to  meet  in 
the  city  of  Baltimore. 

After  it  was  moved  and  carried,  this  motion  was  called,  re- 
considered, and  lost;  but  some  counted  and  «aid  there  was  not 
a  quorum  present. 

Then  followed  the  signatures  of  Francis  Asbury  and 
William  McKendree.  And  below  them  is  this :  "I  consider 
the  reconsideration  of  Early's  motion  unofficial.  William 
McKendree." 

In  1816  it  was  moved: 

That  the  rules  of  the  last  General  Conference  be  read  one  by 
one  and  passed,  with  such  amendments  as  the  Conference  shall 
judge  expedient.  Carried. 

In  this  Conference  the  motion  to  reconsider  was  used 
frequently,  and  the  call  for  the  "previous  question"  was 
conspicuous. 

On  May  24,  1820,  on  a  motion  to  reconsider,  there  was 
a  tie  of  43  ayes  to  43  nays.  A  second  vote  was  taken  with 
the  same  result,  Bishop  Roberts  refusing  to  give  the  cast- 
ing vote;  and  he  pronounced  it  "not  carried,  inasmuch 
as  there  was  not  a  majority." 

By  1820  the  rules  had  reached  the  number  of  forty, 
but  they  were  not  incorporated  in  the  minutes. 

The  catalogue  of  rules  in  the  Journal  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1828  was  the  product  of  a  committee,  and 
contains  several  of  the  best  in  use  at  the  present  time. 

Passing  over  the  years  between  1828  and  1864,  we  find 
the  parliamentary  rules  reduced  to  twenty,  but  they 
combine  several  cognate  rules  in  one. 

The  Rules  of  Order  of  the  General  Conference  of  1908 
are  elaborate,  and  the  number  of  separate  paragraphs 
is  fifty.  This  is  not  a  waste  of  space,  since  the  General 
Conference  consists  in  considerable  part  of  foreigners, 


PROGRESSIVE  ENLARGEMENT 


367 


whose  native  tongue  is  not  English,  and  many  of  the 
members  have  not  had  experience  in  public  bodies,  and 
others,  who  are  expert  parliamentarians  in  Legislatures 
and  town  meetings,  are  not  acquainted  with  the  congeries 
of  rules  which  have  been  accumulating  for  more  than  one 
hundred  years. 

For  a  long  time  it  was  very  difficult  to  prevent  the 
introduction  of  subjects  foreign  to  the  situation  and  pur- 
pose of  the  Conference.  It  only  required  one  man  to 
move  and  another  man  to  second  to  precipitate  a  debate 
which  might  consume  time  and  irritate  the  greater  part 
of  the  members.  A  number  of  years  ago  a  member  intro- 
duced the  subject  of  capital  punishment  and  used  fifteen 
minutes  on  the  subject,  at  a  point  when  time  was  precious. 
And  many  years  before  that  a  member  took  the  floor, 
before  the  rules  had  teen  adopted  for  that  Conference. 
He  claimed  that  he  had  a  right  to  speak  at  any  length, 
and  did  speak  more  than  an  hour  and  a  half.  He  was 
sincere,  able,  and  learned,  and  would  have  been  inter- 
esting in  a  high  degree,  if  the  audience  had  assembled 
to  listen  to  a  lecture.  The  presiding  Bishop  was  com- 
pelled to  suppress  him  without  a  special  rule  to  authorize 
it,  by  assuming  that  the  entire  body  desired  him  to 
cease. 

A  very  important  addition  has  been  introduced.  The 
third  rule  under  the  "Order  of  Business"  is  "the  calling 
of  the  roll  of  Conferences  in  alphabetical  order  for  the 
presentation  of  appeals,  resolutions,  and  miscellaneous 
business  for  immediate  consideration."  And  the  follow- 
ing has  been  added  to  it: 

The  person  introducing  a  proposition  under  the  call  may 
speak  to  it  if  it  be  seconded:  after  tchich  a  motion  to  refer,  if 
made,  shall  be  entertained  and  be  decided  without  debate.  But 
immediately  after  the  motion  or  resolution  has  been  presented, 
and   before  the  person  who   introduces   the  proposition  has 


368  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


spoken,  the  question  of  consideration  may  be  raised  by  a  mem- 
ber, saying:  "Mr.  President,  on  that  I  raise  the  question  of  con- 
sideration." The  question  of  consideration  shall  then  be  put 
without  debate,  and  if  there  is  a  two-thirds  vote  against  con- 
sideration, the  proposition  shall  not  be  entertained. 

To  the  22d  Rule  an  additon  has  been  made: 

Reconsideration.  When  any  motion  or  resolution  shall  have 
been  acted  upon  by  the  Conference,  it  shall  be  in  order  for  any 
member  who  voted  with  the  prevailing  side  to  move  a  recon- 
sideration; but  a  motion  to  reconsider  a  nondebatable  motion 
shall  be  decided  without  debate. 

The  latter  part  of  the  rule  was  introduced  a  number  of 
years  ago  because  one  of  the  ablest  parliamentarians  in 
the  episcopacy  decided  in  favor  of  a  speaker  who  dis- 
cussed a  motion  in  a  critical  debate,  and  when  a  member 
rose  to  a  point  of  order  declared  that  there  was  no  rule 
against  it. 

Under  the  caption  of  "Voting"  there  is  a  law  or  rule 
now  existing,  which  is  very  necessary  but  is  by  no  means 
as  old  as  the  Constitution  of  the  General  Conference : 

Every  member  who  is  within  the  bar  at  the  time  a  question 
Is  put  shall  vote  unless  the  Conference  for  special  reasons  ex- 
cuses him. 

If  such  member  were  to  refuse  to  vote,  the  General 
Conference  has  power  to  expel  him. 

The  contrast  between  this  list  of  rules  and  the  few  that 
our  fathers  employed  is  suggestive  and  inspiring.  A 
similar  process  has  taken  place  in  the  parliamentary  rules 
of  the  State  Legislatures  and  federal  Congress. 


CHAPTER  XLVII 


Some  Decisions  by  the  Bishops 
I 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1816  Bishop  McKendree 
introduced  a  foreign  element.  A  motion  was  made  that 
"the  fortieth  Article,  relative  to  the  previous  question, 
be  expunged  entire  from  the  rules  of  the  Conference.'' 
Bangs  called  for  the  previous  question,  and  this  singular 
decision  was  given  by  Bishop  McKendree :  "The  president 
was  of  opinion  that  it  was  not  in  order,  on  prudential 
grounds,  to  put  the  previous  question  on  a  motion  which 
goes  to  consider  the  propriety  of  the  previous  question 
itself." 

II 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1840  a  tie  appeared  on  a 
motion  to  lay  a  substitute  on  the  table.  The  vote  stood 
62  to  62,  and  the  presiding  Bishop,  Andrew,  voted  in  the 
affirmative. 

Ill 

In  the  General  Conference  of  1840  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  with  respect  to  increasing 
the  number  of  Superintendents  was  taken  up. 

The  second  resolution  was  read,  the  pending  motion 
being  to  amend  by  striking  out  "2"  and  inserting  "1"; 
a  division  of  the  motion  was  called  for,  so  as  to  take  the 
question  on  striking  out  first.  The  Conference  resolved 
to  take  the  question  without  further  debate,  and  the  main 
question  being  about  to  be  taken,  the  call  for  division 
was  renewed. 

Winans  moved  to  postpone  the  motion  for  a  division. 
369 


370  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

The  point  of  order  was  raised  in  respect  to  the  propriety 
of  such  a  motion  after  the  main  question  had  been 
ordered,  and  the  Chair  (Bishop  Hedding)  decided  it  to 
be  in  order  to  move  the  postponement  of  the  motion  to 
divide. 

Bangs  took  an  appeal,  the  question  being,  "Shall  the 
decision  of  the  Chair  stand  as  the  judgment  of  the  Con- 
ference?"  It  was  decided  in  the  negative. 

The  president  having  decided  that  the  main  question 
had  respect  to  the  pending  amendment  only,  Bangs  again 
took  an  appeal  from  the  decision  and  it  was  determined 
in  the  negative. 

It  was  moved  to  adopt  the  whole  report  as  amended. 
While  this  was  pending  a  motion  was  made  to  amend  the 
report  by  inserting  a  resolution  in  favor  of  the  election 
and  ordination  of  one  Bishop.  The  president  decided  it 
to  be  in  order,  "because  it  was  a  point  the  Conference 
had  not  acted  on  when  it  was  determined  not  to  elect  two 
Bishops."  From  this  decision  Bangs  took  an  appeal ;  and 
again  the  decision  of  the  Chair  was  negatived. 

IV 

In  1840  a  vote  was  taken  which  stood  69  to  69.  Bishop 
Hedding  was  in  the  chair,  and  was  called  upon  to  give 
the  casting  vote.  He  declined,  "not  that  he  was  unwill- 
ing to  give  his  opinion  in  the  case  pending,  but  because 
he  did  not  think  he  had  a  constitutional  right  to  do  so." 
For  this  opinion  he  gave  the  following  reasons : 

In  the  original  General  Conference  the  Bishops  not  only  had 
a  right  to  give  the  casting  vote,  hut  to  speak  and  vote  on  all 
subjects  if  they  chose  to  do  so.  They  had  the  right,  because  all 
traveling  preachers  who  had  been  in  the  connection  four  years 
had  it,  and  they  had  the  right  as  traveling  preachers;  but  when 
the  delegated  General  Conference  was  constituted  that  right  was 
taken  away — probably  not  by  design,  but  inadvertently.  Under 


SOME  DECISIONS  BY  THE  BISHOPS  371 


the  arrangement  for  a  delegated  General  Conference  the  Dis- 
cipline has  always  said,  in  substance,  the  General  Conference 
shall  be  composed  of  delegates  from  the  Annual  Conferences. 
The  Bishops,  not  being  delegates  from  any  Annual  Conference, 
have  no  right  to  vote,  and,  consequently,  no  right  to  give  a 
casting  vote.  The  Discipline  provides  that  they  shall  preside 
in  the  General  Conference,  but  it  does  not  provide  that  they  shall 
vote.  The  speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  Congress 
can  give  the  casting  vote,  because  he  forms  a  part  of  the  body, 
and  is  elected  and  sent  there  as  others  are. 

The  president  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  has  a  right 
to  give  the  casting  vote  because,  though  not  an  elected  member, 
the  Constitution  gives  him  that  right.  If  our  Constitution  had 
given  the  Bishops  a  right  to  vote,  I  should  now  be  willing  to 
give  the  casting  vote,  but  as  it  does  not,  I  must  decline. 

The  biographer  of  Bishop  Hedding,  Davis  W.  Clark, 
says  that  the  latter  "knew  that  this  had  been  done  in 
several  instances  when  there  was  a  tie  in  the  General 
Conference."  This  is  an  error;  only  four  ties  had 
occurred  in  the  history  of  the  General  Conference.  These 
have  been  mentioned  elsewhere;  in  three  of  them  there 
was  no  casting  vote,  and  the  only  one  ever  cast  was  on 
May  19,  1840,  nine  days  before  Bishop  Hedding  declined 
to  give  it. 

From  that  time,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  or 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  no  Bishop  has 
given  a  casting  vote. 

Rarely  is  an  appeal  taken  from  the  decision  of  a  Bishop 
when  presiding  in  the  General  Conference,  and  still  more 
rarely  does  the  Conference  sustain  the  appeal.  The 
reason  for  this  is  compound.  Many  are  not  versed  in 
parliamentary  proceedings ;  all  revere  the  General  Super- 
intendents; and  usually  they  ore  right  in  their  decisions 
in  the  Conference.  While  there  are  different  degrees  of 
gifts  and  knowledge  for  this  work  among  the  Bishops, 
there  are  several  who  are  past  masters  in  the  art:  and 
they  can  guide  and  steady  the  timid  or  perplexed. 


372  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


The  late  Bishop  Fowler,  most  capable  and  usually  cor- 
rect in  his  conclusions,  made  a  decision  which  led  the  late 
Bishop  Merrill  to  approach  him  from  the  rear  of  the  plat- 
form, and  at  the  same  time  a  question  came  from  the 
floor,  "Is  the  President  sure  that  his  decision  is  correct?" 
Instantly  he  responded:  "The  Chair  is  not  sure  at  all. 
He  has  received  light  from  behind." 

VII 

One  important  question  arose  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1880.  The  preceding  Conference  had  ordered 
a  Committee  on  "Revising  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Code," 
consisting  of  nine — three  Bishops,  three  ministers,  and 
three  laymen.  The  Bishops  were  Harris,  Merrill,  and 
Andrews.  Bishop  Harris  was  elected  chairman.  He 
promptly  declined  on  the  ground  that  a  Bishop,  not  being 
a  member  of  the  General  Conference,  could  not  enter  the 
discussions  on  the  floor,  and  especially,  take  the  advan- 
tage, given  to  the  chairman  of  a  committee,  of  making  the 
last  speech.  The  other  Bishops  agreed  with  him,  and 
one  of  the  three  ministers  was  elected.  In  the  General 
Conference  of  1884,  Bishop  Wiley  was  on  a  committee, 
and  a  question  arose  as  to  the  right  of  Bishop  Wiley, 
chairman  of  the  committee,  to  close  the  debate.  Bishop 
Hurst  decided  that  he  had  the  right.  Thereupon  an  appeal 
was  taken  from  the  decision  of  the  Chair,  "upon  the 
ground  that  these  rules  were  made  for  the  government 
of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference,  and  that 
Bishop  Wiley,  not  being  a  member  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, had  not  the  right,  under  parliamentary  rules 
made  solely  for  the  government  of  members  of  the  body, 
to  close  a  debate."  The  appeal  was  sustained  by  a  large 
majority. 

Later  as  a  matter  of  privilege,  Bishop  Hurst  stated 


SOME  DECISIONS  BY  THE  BISHOPS 


373 


again  the  ground  of  his  decision  with  additions,  as 
follows: 

The  Committee  on  Cooperation  in  Church  Work  is  a  creature 
of  the  General  Conference.  This  body  appointed  a  member  from 
each  General  Conference  district,  and  directed  that  the  Board  of 
Bishops  should  designate  one  of  their  number  besides,  who 
proved  to  be  Bishop  Wiley.  All  these  together  should  constitute 
the  committee.  It  would  seem  that  Bishop  Wiley  is  as  much  a 
member  of  the  committee  as  any  other  man  on  it,  because  he 
■was  designated  by  order  of  the  General  Conference.  If  he  were 
not,  it  would  be  clear  that  the  conclusions  which  the  committee 
reached,  and  this  report,  would  be  of  no  legal  force.  To  this 
opinion  I  must  still  adhere.' 

Later  the  appellant  moved  that  Bishop  Wiley  be  permitted 
to  give  an  explanation  of  an  item  in  dispute. 

It  was  the  judgment  of  those  who  sustained  the  appeal, 
that,  had  the  decision  been  sustained,  and  the  assump- 
tion it  contained  become  settled,  a  majority  could  have 
placed  a  Bishop  at  the  head  of  every  committee  with 
power  to  utter  the  last  speech  in  the  debate. 

'General  Conference  Journal.  1884,  p.  263. 


CHAPTER  XLVIII 


Rational  Rules  and  their  Rational  Use 

Of  all  the  concise  statements  of  the  value  of  parlia- 
mentary rules  none  are  clearer  than  these  two. 

Jefferson,  who  wrote  the  first  important  work  in 
America  on  parliamentary  law,  quotes  from  Mr.  Onslow, 
who  was  counted  "the  ablest  among  the  speakers  of  the 
House  of  Commons,"  as  frequently  saying  that  "it  was 
a  maxim  he  had  often  heard  when  he  was  a  young  man, 
from  old  and  experienced  members,  that  nothing  tended 
more  to  throw  power  into  the  hands  of  administration, 
and  those  who  acted  with  the  majority  of  the  House  of 
Commons,  than  a  neglect  of,  or  departure  from,  the  rules 
of  proceeding;  that  these  forms,  as  instituted  by  our 
ancestors,  operated  as  a  check,  and  control,  on  the  actions 
of  the  majority,  and  that  they  were,  in  many  instances, 
a  shelter  and  protection  to  the  minority,  against  the 
attempts  of  power." 

Jefferson  quotes  another  authority:  "It  is  much  more 
material  that  there  should  be  a  rule  to  go  by  than  what 
that  rule  is;  that  thei'e  may  be  a  uniformity  of  proceed- 
ing in  business,  not  subject  to  the  caprice  of  the  speaker, 
or  capriciousness  of  the  members.  It  is  very  material 
that  order,  decency,  and  regularity  he  preserved  in  a 
dignified  public  body." 

strict  attendance 

Every  member  of  a  General  Conference  should  attend 
to  the  business  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the 
sessions,  tiresome  though  it  may  be.   No  one  can  foretell 
374 


RATIONAL  RULES  AND  THEIR  RATIONAL  USE  375 


what  may  spring  up.  "The  regular  order  of  business, 
after  the  reading  of  the  Journal  and  action  thereon,  is 
the  calling  of  the  roll  of  Conferences  in  alphabetical 
order  for  the  presentation  of  appeals,  resolutions,  and 
miscellaneous  business  for  immediate  consideration." 

There  are  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  Annual  Confer- 
ences, and  this  order  of  business  is  frequently  continued 
each  morning  for  ten  or  more  working  days. 

A  solemn  responsibility  is  placed  upon  every  delegate 
by  his  constituents,  and  is  accepted  by  him.  Decisions 
are  settled  by  majorities,  and  frequently  by  a  majority 
of  one ;  or  are  lost  for  the  lack  of  two  more  votes.  Every 
member  also  should  understand  what  is  going  on.  Not 
unfrequently  a  resolution  is  put  upon  its  passage  and 
declared  lost  or  carried,  and  when  the  president  an- 
nounces the  result,  then,  or  later,  dissatisfaction  arises, 
and  not  a  few  members  declare  that  they  did  not  hear 
what  was  going  on,  or  that  they  were  absent. 

It  is  the  duty  of  every  member  to  vote.  Under  no 
circumstances  should  he  fail  to  do  so,  unless  he  cannot 
choose  between  the  positive  and  negative  of  the  resolu- 
tion. Every  member  can.  if  he  will,  comprehend  the 
proposition  presented — if  not  through  the  public  speeches, 
by  conversation  with  some  one  near  him  who  understands 
the  situation.  A  large  number  of  propositions  belong  to 
the  class  that  have  to  be  published  in  the  Daily  Advo- 
cate before  being  acted  upon  in  the  Conference.  These 
should  be  studied,  so  that  whatever  the  confusion  may 
be,  the  meaning  of  the  resolution  can  be  kept  before  the 
mind. 

If  not  already  done,  often  it  would  be  wise  to  postpone 
and  print  in  the  Daily  Advocate. 

Besides  the  regular  methods  of  the  Conferences  there 
are  two  other  possible  forms  of  action;  and  these  differ 
in  moral  quality. 


37G  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 
THE  "trick" 

In  every  legislative  body  there  is  room  for  tricks, 
which,  if  not  counter-worked,  may  bring  about  great  dis- 
aster. Such  are  common  in  Legislatures,  in  the  House  of 
Representatives ;  sometimes  in  Senates,  and  most  fre- 
quently in  boards  of  aldermen  in  cities  under  the  domina- 
tion of  corrupt  officials,  or  the  power  of  a  conscienceless 
political  party  leader;  under  such  circumstances  money 
and  promises  of  place  play  a  great  part.  The  "trick," 
however,  sometimes  appears  in  the  assemblies  and  con- 
ferences of  great  literary,  scientific,  artistic,  benevolent, 
and  religious  societies  and  in  denominational  General 
Assemblies  and  Conferences. 

The  word  "trick"  is  used  in  the  sense  of  a  device  for 
getting  an  advantage;  a  petty  artifice;  a  contrivance, 
which,  if  exposed  beforehand,  would  be  condemned  by  all 
who  did  not  benefit  by  it.  For  example :  very  frequently 
the  Conference  assembles  slowly  in  the  morning.  Some 
members  are  quartered  at  great  distances  from  the  place 
of  meeting,  and  think  that  if  they  reach  their  seats  at 
the  close  of  the  reading  of  the  minutes  they  will  be  in 
time  for  business:  also  it  requires  several  minutes  after 
recess  to  resume  business.  Sometimes  those  who  are 
anxious  to  get  some  report  or  resolution  carried,  take 
advantage  of  this  ordinary  situation  to  gather  together 
all  their  forces,  making  a  compact  not  to  have  any  dis- 
cussion, and  thus,  in  a  few  minutes,  get  their  motion 
through,  having  a  majority  (perhaps  the  only  way  they 
could  have  procured  it) .  Such  tactics  may  justly  be  called 
a  trick.  It  is  a  secret  device  for  getting  an  advantage, 
not  by  positive,  but  by  what  may  be  called  negative, 
deception. 

The  producing  of  a  majority  by  the  manner  described, 
is  not  so  deceitful  as  it  is  when  the  leaders  detail  some 
of  their  friends  to  engage  the  opponents  of  the  measure 


RATIONAL  RULES  AND  THEIR  RATIONAL  USE  377 

in  conversation  at  their  hotels  so  that  they  shall  he 
absent  until  after  the  transaction  is  safely  completed. 
In  a  Christian  assembly  everything  should  be  open  and 
fair.  If  defeated  by  the  tricks  of  the  unconscientious, 
the  only  resource  is  to  secure  a  reconsideration. 

STRATEGY 

The  other  method  is  by  strategy.  Parliamentary  law 
is  complex.  Each  rule  has  a  definite  meaning  and  a 
definite  purpose,  and  he  who  understands  it  and  is  ca- 
pable of  using  it  can  be  in  a  degree  a  "master  of  assem- 
blies"; and  there  should  be  scores  of  masters  in  a  large 
assembly  such  as  the  General  Conference,  men  who  can 
pilot  a  resolution  safely  into  the  harbor  through  waves 
of  emotion  or  fogs  of  confused  ideas. 

Strategy  in  war  is  the  science  of  projecting  and  direct- 
ing important  military  movements  or  operations,  and  the 
skillful  management  of  large  bodies  of  men :  and  the  first 
derived  definition  from  it  is  the  display  or  exercise  of 
skill  and  forethought  in  carrying  out  one's  plans. 

In  a  parliament  the  exercise  of  such  strategy  is  open. 
The  motion  is  made;  the  body  understands  its  meaning 
and  measures  its  scope.  The  strategist  may  or  may  not 
declare  what  his  next  move  will  be,  but  all  the  weapons 
that  he  can  possibly  employ  lie  open  to  every  eye.  All 
the  rules  are  com])rehended  in  a  few  fundamental  prin- 
ciples: to  push  business  along;  to  hold  it  back  when 
necessary ;  to  get  it  out  of  the  way ;  to  prevent  confusion ; 
to  modify  by  dividing  or  diminishing  or  enlarging;  to 
dismiss  the  assembly.  Keeping  these  elements  in  view 
a  modicum  of  common  sense  will  prevent  error. 

The  man  who  uses  honorable  strategy  weighs  the  result 
of  every  motion  before  he  makes  it.  He  perceives  the 
temper  of  the  assembly.  If  he  believes  the  motion  before 
the  house  worthy  of  being  debated,  but  to  be  in  some 


378  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

respects  defective,  he  may  make  a  motion  to  amend;  but 
if  there  be  made  an  amendment  to  that  amendment,  and 
he  has  reason  to  think  that  the  second  amendment  is 
of  such  a  nature  that  the  original  motion  was  better 
without  any  amendment,  and,  for  reasons,  believes  that 
the  body  will  be  deceived  by  the  second  amendment,  and 
is  somewhat  tired  of  the  whole  debate,  he  may  move  to 
lay  all  that  is  before  the  house  on  the  table.  His  knowl- 
edge of  the  situation  and  of  the  temperament  of  the 
body  enables  him  to  do  this;  whereas,  if  he  had  done  it 
before,  it  would  not  have  been  laid  upon  the  table  and 
the  majority  of  the  house  would  have  been  antagonistic 
to  anything  that  he  might  do.  This  is  strategy,  but  it 
is  not  trickery,  for  it  is  as  open  as  the  day. 

In  the  long  roll  of  parliamentary  assemblies  presid- 
ing officers  have  sometimes  been  found  to  be  parties  to 
an  underhand  scheme  of  action. 

When  only  one  member  addresses  the  Chair,  if  he  be 
in  order,  the  pi'esident  niust  recognize  him.  But  if  there 
be  two,  he  has  the  necessary  right  to  recognize  one,  and 
if  a  larger  number,  to  select  one  from  it.  But  he  has  no 
right  to  make  promises  to  men  to  give  them  the  floor,  as 
against  a  man  holding  a  view  obnoxious  to  him,  if  the 
said  man  addressed  the  Chair  before  any  other. 

In  a  protracted  debate,  should  a  large  number  rise  in 
unison,  the  president  can  choose;  he  can,  if  he  will 
descend  to  it,  choose  each  one  from  the  side  of  the  ques- 
tion that  pleases  him.  In  the  history  of  large  assem- 
blies in  the  course  of  years  such  things  have  been  done. 
A  president  of  a  noble  mind  would  alternate,  first  recog- 
nizing a  representative  of  the  aiiirmative,  and  next,  one 
of  the  negative.  This  is  the  case  usually  in  the  General 
Conference.  The  highest  type  of  man  would  select  the 
best  on  each  side,  and  not  (as  has  been  the  case  in  some 
bodies)  out  of  the  motley  crowd  that  address  the  speaker, 


RATIONAL  RULES  AND  THEIR  RATIONAL  USE  379 


select  the  best  upon  the  side  that  he  favors,  and  the 
weakest  of  those  on  the  other  side. 

In  the  contrast  it  is  a  pleasing  and  uplifting  spectacle 
to  know  the  sentiments  of  a  presiding  officer  and  to 
discover  him  to  be  as  impartial  as  a  finite  being  could  be 
in  selecting  from  the  number  desiring  the  floor. 


CHAPTER  XLIX 


"Without  Debate" 

The  abhorrence  of  debate  at  particular  times  and  for 
particular  purposes  is  illustrated  b.y  certain  extracts 
from  the  Journals  of  the  General  Conferences. 

I 

General  Conference  Journal,  1832,  May  28: 
Monday  Afternoon 

Conference  met  according  to  adjournment.  Bishop  Soule  in 
the  chair. 

The  Journal  of  the  forenoon  was  read  and  approved. 

The  president  presented  the  following  written  address: 

The  Bishops  being  desirous  of  understanding  with  clearness 
and  certainty  the  resolution  passed  by  the  General  Conference 
at  its  present  session  in  relation  to  the  episcopal  visitations  of 
the  Annual  Conferences,  in  the  course  of  the  ensuing  four  years, 
beg  the  favor  of  a  vote  of  the  Conference,  without  debate,  in 
answer  to  the  following  questions,  viz.: 

Was  it  the  intention  of  the  General  Conference,  by  the  resolu- 
tion above  alluded  to,  simply  to  relieve  the  Bishops  from  the 
influence  of  the  resolution  passed  at  the  last  General  Conference 
on  the  same  subject,  and  to  leave  them  now  at  liberty  on  their 
joint  and  several  responsibility  to  make  such  arrangements 
among  themselves  for  the  entire  administration,  and  for  the 
visitation  of  the  Annual  Conferences  as  they  shall  judge  most 
conducive  to  the  general  good;  and  without  designing  to  give 
any  direction  or  advice  whether  it  be  or  be  not  expedient  for 
each  of  the  Bishops,  in  the  course  of  the  four  years,  to  visit 
each  of  the  Annual  Conferences,  should  they  themselves  find  it 
convenient  and  practicable,  and  judge  it  for  the  general  good 
so  to  do? 

The  Conference  voted  an  answer  to  the  above  in  the 
affirmative. 

380 


"WITHOUT  DEBATE" 


381 


II 

The  extracts  here  presented  should  be  closely  read  to 
understand  the  foregoing. 

Copied  from  the  General  Conference  Journal  of  1824: 
May  25,  recorded  May  28 : 

Resolved.  &c.,  4.  That  it  is  highly  expedient  for  the  General 
Superintendents,  at  every  session  of  the  General  Conference,  and 
as  far  as  to  them  may  appear  practicable,  in  the  intervals  of 
the  sessions,  annually,  to  meet  in  council  to  form  their  plan  of 
traveling  through  their  charge,  whether  in  a  circuit  after  each 
other  or  by  dividing  the  connection  into  several  episcopal  de- 
partments, with  one  Bishop  or  more  in  each  department,  as  to 
them  may  appear  proper  and  most  conducive  to  the  general 
good,  and  the  better  to  enable  them  fully  to  perform  the  great 
work  of  their  administration  in  the  General  Superintendency, 
and  to  exchange  and  unite  their  views  upon  all  affairs  connected 
with  the  general  interests  of  the  Church. 

The  above  resolution  was  carried,  and  was  not  recon- 
sidered. 

Ill 

General  Conference  Journal,  1828,  May  22: 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy 

The  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  begs  leave  to  report: 

1.  Your  committee,  after  a  particular  and  minute  examina- 
tion respecting  the  labors  and  administration  of  our  govern- 
ment by  the  episcopacy,  finds  nothing  to  condemn  but  much  to 
applaud.  Their  labors  during  the  last  four  years  have  been 
arduous,  and  their  attention  to  duty  such  as  meets  the  decided 
approbation  of  your  committee. 

2.  In  any  arrangement  that  the  Bishops  may  think  proper  to 
make  for  their  own  convenience  in  the  general  oversight  of  the 
work,  we  would  recommend  that  each  of  our  Bishops  should,  if 
practicable,  be  known  in  each  of  the  Annual  Conferences  once  in 
four  years;  and  that  none  of  our  preachers  should  be  kept  too 
long  in  city  stations. 

This  also  was  carried  and  not  reconsidered. 


382  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

IV 

General  Conference  Journal,  1832,  May  23: 

8.  Considering  the  great  extent  of  the  work  throughout  this 
vast  continent,  committed  to  the  oversight  of  the  episcopacy, 
the  committee  deems  it  inexpedient  to  require  each  of  our 
Bishops  to  travel  throughout  the  whole  of  their  extensive 
charges  during  the  recess  of  the  General  Conference,  and  there- 
fore recommends  to  the  episcopacy  to  make  such  an  apportion- 
ment of  the  work  among  themselves  as  shall  best  suit,  in  their 
judgment,  most  effectually  to  promote  the  general  good. 

The  journey  through  the  three  extracts,  from  1824 
to  1832,  carefully  examining  the  route,  will  show  why 
the  General  Superintendents  authorized  Bishop  Soule  to 
ask  that  the  Conference  interpret  the  last  of  the  three 
actions,  without  debate.  Also  the  answer  desired  was 
furnished. 

Whether  the  General  Conferences  were  wrong  or  right 
in  their  desires  is  not  in  question  here.  Those  Bishops 
were  godly  men,  and  the  Church  justly  honors  their  mem- 
ory. The  issue  is  whether  a  momentous  question  should 
be  determined  without  delate — not  by  a  parliamentary 
rule  made  by  the  house,  but  by  a  pressure  laid  in  the  form 
of  a  request  upon  the  whole  Conference.  Under  the  cir- 
cumstances anyone  who  had  begun  to  address  the  Chair 
would  have  offended  the  majority  of  his  brethren  and  also 
the  episcopacy. 

NECESSITY  AND  SUPREME  VALUE  OF  DEBATE 

There  are  those  who  would  have  all  business  done  by 
committees  or  commissions,  and  are  impatient  if  anyone 
rises  to  propound  a  question  to  the  chairman,  and  par- 
ticularly so  if  the  question  goes  to  the  center  of  the  sub- 
ject and  awakes  in  the  whole  assembly  a  spirit  of  inquiry. 
But  those  who  dislike  such  a  question  are  often  much 


"WITHOUT  DEBATE" 


383 


more  disturbed  when  a  powerful  speaker,  who  has  studied 
the  subject,  attacks  the  foundations  of  the  report. 

John  Wesley,  even  in  the  early  days  of  his  conversa- 
tional Conferences,  at  which  the  majority  of  the  preachers 
were  far  below  the  master  in  education  and  experience, 
was  never  guilty  of  this.  He  heard  them  for  hours  and 
days,  and,  though  he  retained  and  exercised  the  power 
of  final  decision,  learned  much  from  the  "Conversations," 
and  modified  his  views  whenever  he  received  from  others 
a  valuable  suggestion. 

It  is  not  in  the  nature  of  human  beings  possessing 
great  power  and  having  no  adequate  restriction,  to  be 
impartial,  just,  and  tender.  Even  in  the  absence  of  any 
conscious  ambition  to  rule  for  rule's  sake,  the  habit  would 
grow  strong  in  proportion  to  the  absence  of  obstruction 
or  the  fear  of  discomfort. 

Free  debate  is  the  salvation  of  a  free  people,  in  Church 
or  in  state. 

The  practice  of  debate  quickens  the  mind,  teaches  how 
to  marshal  arguments,  requires  much  general  or  particu- 
lar preparation :  for  "he  that  is  first  in  his  own  cause 
seemeth  just;  but  his  neighbor  cometh  and  searcheth 
him."  Debate  promotes  fluency  of  utterance  and 
increases  the  susceptibility  of  being  aroused  mentally 
and  physically  at  the  same  moment. 

That  which  represses  debate  on  important  subjects  fur- 
nishes armor  and  builds  fortresses  for  tyrants. 

HELPS  TO  EFFECTIVE  DEBATE 

No  one  should  enter  into  a  debate  before  he  has  made  a 
thorough  examination  of  the  whole  subject;  otherwise 
his  understanding  will  be  clouded,  and  he  will  not  know 
after  he  has  finished  what  he  himself  believes. 

Either  in  debating  or  in  listening  to  debates  it  is 
unwise  to  form  immovable  opinions  of  the  general  sub- 


384  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


ject  as  the  debate  progresses.  Generally  men  are  identi- 
fied with  one  side  or  the  other,  and  he  who  has  examined 
the  whole  subject  before  unalterably  fixing  his  own  judg- 
ment is  able  to  weigh  the  arguments  brought  forth  by 
others.  A  debater  in  a  Christian  assembly — or,  indeed, 
anywhere — should  cultivate  self-possession.  Neither 
embarrassment  nor  anger  should  be  allowed  for  an 
instant ;  no  personal  allusions,  such  as  charging  oppo- 
nents with  sophistry,  hypocrisy,  or  stupidity,  no  stinging 
witticisms;  everything  should  be  done  in  good  humor. 
That  man  is  mentally  blind  and  deaf  and  lame  who  does 
not  know  that  men  may  believe  opinions  directly  opposed 
to  his,  yet  be  as  wise  and  honest  as  himself. 

In  an  assembly  invested  with  important  responsibili- 
ties no  one  should  speak  for  speaking's  sake,  or  to  be 
seen ;  but  if  any  member  think  that  he  has  something 
valuable  to  say,  he  should  utter  it.  Should  another  have 
brought  it  forward,  and  some  one  has  assailed  it  but 
does  not  convince  a  listener  familiar  with  the  issue,  he 
should  rise  and  defend  it.  Where  the  limit  of  the 
speaker's  time  is  but  ten  minutes,  ten  pertinent  sentences 
stated  clearly  may  be  better  than  ten  times  ten.  If  one 
is,  like  Elihu,  compelled  to  speak,  full  of  matter,  bursting 
with  sound  words,  he  should  view  intently  the  speaker  on 
the  floor  and  discern  by  his  inflection  and  accent  when 
he  is  about  to  cease.  Let  him  not  allow  a  fraction  of  a 
second  to  pass  after  the  speaker  has  finished  before 
Elihu's  voice  is  heard,  and  at  the  same  instant  let  it  be 
perceived  that  he  is  on  his  feet. 

STANDING   COMMITTEES  A   HELP  TO  DEBATE 

The  standing  committees,  as  well  as  the  special  com- 
mittees, are  governed  by  the  same  rules  of  order  which 
are  in  practice  in  the  General  Conference,  so  far  as  they 
apply  to  them.    It  is  impossible,  for  various  causes,  for 


"WITHOUT  DEBATE" 


385 


every  member  of  a  General  Conference  of  more  than  eight 
hundred  delegates  to  speak  in  that  body,  and  it  is  much 
easier  to  secure  the  floor  in  a  committee  than  in  the  house. 
So  far  as  possible  one  who  has  anything  to  say  that  has 
not  been  said  by  others  effectively  should  deliver  his  senti- 
ments in  the  committee.  Frequently  there  is  a  unity  of 
agreement  on  important  questions ;  but  on  important 
questions  in  which  there  is  a  division  of  the  sentiment 
there  should  be  a  majority  and  a  minority  report.  He 
who  is  able  or  learns  to  speak  "in  order"  in  a  committee 
of  more  than  one  hundred  need  not  be  afraid  to  address 
the  larger  body.  Until  about  forty  years  ago  in  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  the  allotted  time  for  speakers  was  fifteen 
minutes,  but  it  was  customary  to  lengthen  the  time  of 
luminous  debaters  indefinitely.  The  regular  time  has 
been  reduced  to  ten  minutes,  with  but  few  instances  of 
suspending  the  rule ;  therefore  the  work  of  the  committees 
should  be  thorough,  and  the  chairman,  who  has  the  last 
speech,  should  say  much  in  little;  and  those  who  speak  in 
the  General  Conference  should  cultivate  that  method. 

NECESSARY  BUT  DANGEROUS  RULES 

The  motion  to  lay  on  tJie  table  is  nondebatable.  The 
person  moving  it  cannot,  if  he  would,  explain  why  he 
moves  it,  nor  has  anyone  the  right  to  ask  why  he  wishes 
to  do  it,  nor  can  the  president  utter  a  word  except  to  put 
the  motion.   It  requires  only  a  majority  of  one. 

The  previous  question  also  admits  of  no  debate,  but 
it  does  not  take  the  subject  out  of  the  touch  of  the 
assembly.  The  reason  for  it  cannot  be  explained  at  the 
time,  and  the  main  question  must  be  put. 

It  is  not  quite  so  dangerous  as  the  question  to  lay  on 
the  table.  If  sustained  by  a  vote  of  two  thirds,  it  brings 
forward  the  main  question.  Under  it,  it  is  in  order  under 
our  rules  to  move  to  refer  or  to  recommit,  on  either  of 


386  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


which  the  vote  shall  be  taken  without  debate.  It  will 
allow  a  division  or  to  lay  on  the  table  after  the  previous 
question  has  been  ordered.  It  shall  not,  however,  be  in 
order  to  move  the  previous  question  or  to  move  to  lay  on 
the  table  at  the  close  of  a  speech  in  which  the  pending  ques- 
tion has  been  discussed.  The  dangerous  possibility  is  in 
the  fact  that  chairmen  of  committees,  and  members 
wishing  to  bring  forward  other  'business  in  which  they 
are  interested,  are  frequently  ready  and  hasty  to  move 
to  lay  on  the  table  or  to  call  the  previous  question  for 
the  purpose  of  getting  the  subject  out  of  the  way,  so 
that  the  business  which  the  mover  and  his  friends  wish 
to  bring  forward  can  be  considered.  If  the  first  is  more 
important  than  the  second,  it  may  be  injurious,  and  it 
is  often  thoughtlessly  done. 

The  period  near  the  permanent  close  of  a  General 
Conference  is  a  dangerous  time. 

A  member  should  take  as  much  interest  in  things  not 
affecting  the  community  or  region  whence  he  comes  as  he 
does  in  those  of  his  home  country.  Relaxed  attention  is 
noted  frequently  in  Legislatures  and  Congresses ;  men 
ascertain  at  what  time  that  which  they  stand  for  particu- 
larly will  be  brought  forward,  and  the  rest  of  the  time 
they  absent  themselves  or  are  listless.  The  delegate  to  the 
General  Conference  who  only  pays  attention  to  the  things 
that  he  thought  of  before  he  came  will  go  away  without 
knowing  much  more  than  he  did  when  he  arrived.  The 
unification  in  spirit  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
is  to  be  brought  about  and  maintained  only  by  the  fact 
that  the  knowledge  of  one  is  the  knowledge  of  all,  and 
those  who  attend  with  the  intention  of  learning  what 
they  can  of  universal  Methodism  and  the  new  methods 
which  promise  well,  will  carry  away  much  which  will 
be  valuable  wherever  they  go. 


CHAPTER  L 


An  Unpaealleled  Free  School  of  Parliajientary  Law 

Our  system  of  government  under  the  Constitution 
would  naturally  develop  great  parliamentarians.  A  few 
salient  points  of  character  or  achievement  relating  to 
those  who  have  presided  in  the  General  and  Annual  Con- 
ferences will  serve  to  show  that  this  is  not  an  unsup- 
ported estimate. 

One  hundred  and  sixty-three  Annual  Conferences,  in- 
cluding Mission  Conferences  not  represented  in  the 
General  Conference,  meet  four  times  each  during  the  in- 
terim of  the  General  Conferences.  One  hundred  and 
twenty-five  are  in  the  United  States,  and  the  rest  are 
scattered  throughout  the  world.  The  same  General  Su- 
perintendents who  preside  in  the  General  Conferences, 
preside  over  the  Annual  Conferences. 

In  them  the  General  Superintendents  have  much  more 
control  than  they  have  in  the  General  Conferences.  They 
decide  questions  of  law  and  their  decisions  must  prevail 
for  the  session.  There  is,  however,  the  right  of  an  appeal 
to  the  next  General  Conference. 

The  Bishops  can  adjourn  the  Conference  after  it  has 
been  in  session  one  week,  and  they  can  compel  the  Con- 
ference to  sit  longer  than  a  week  if  the  Disciplinary  re- 
quirements are  not  yet  met.  Thus  in  four  years  more  than 
five  hundred  Conferences  are  held  in  at  least  four  hundred 
towns  or  cities,  all  presided  over  by  expert  parliamen- 
tarians. 

Besides  these  there  are  several  Missionary  Bishops, 
who — limited  to  certain  foreign  missions  and  the  coun- 
tries wherein  the  missions  are — preside  over  the  Confer- 
387 


388  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

ences  in  those  countries.  And  once  in  every  quadrennium 
every  Mission  over  which  a  Missionary  Bishop  has  charge 
is  administered  jointly  by  a  General  Superintendent  and 
the  Missionary  Bishop. 

A  PROCESSION  OF  GREAT  PRESIDING  OFFICERS 

Thomas  Coke  was  impulsive,  not  suited  to  presiding  in 
the  United  States,  especially  at  the  time  in  which  he  was 
in  this  country. 

Francis  Asbury  had  little  use  for  a  code  of  laws.  He 
did  not  resemble  a  president  or  a  moderator;  rather  a 
loving  but  stern  father.  He  lived  only  eight  years  after 
the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  and  during  the 
greater  part  of  that  period  he  was  very  ill.  A  thorough 
study  of  his  temperament  would  not  allow  dissent  from 
the  view  here  taken. 

William  McKendree  was  a  competent  parliamentarian, 
but  was  conscious  of  power  and  sometimes  did  not  show 
the  softness  of  spirit  which  would  disguise  the  strong 
grasp  upon  the  wills  of  those  whom  he  superintended. 
Both  Asbury  and  McKendree  were  lovable  men,  and  the 
latter  had  what  might  be  called  a  "business  head."  If 
it  is  permissible  to  say  that  Peter  was  more  impulsive, 
more  liable  to  speak  sharply,  and  rush  hastily  into  a 
difficulty,  than  others  of  the  apostles,  or  to  mark  the 
distinction  between  John  and  Paul  without  reflecting 
upon  their  characters  and  religious  standing,  it  is  allow- 
able to  believe  to-day  neither  Asbury  nor  McKendree 
would  be  able  by  the  same  methods  and  spirit,  to  con- 
trol the  Church  which  they  erected.  In  fact,  they  lived 
at  a  period  between  the  undeveloped  Church  and  one 
thoroughly  settled. 

Richard  Whatcoat — so  kind,  so  amiable,  so  sincere  and 
so  grave — was  accepted  as  a  president,  and  venerated. 

Robert  R.  Roberts  was  a  man  with  a  strong  but  not 


A  FREE  SCHOOL  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  LAW  389 


rapidly  moving  mind,  and  a  large  and  sympathetic  heart. 
Possessed  of  tact  and  executive  ability,  he  presided  with 
mildness,  propriety,  and  dignity.  He  was  calm,  prompt, 
and  impartial,  but  thoroughly  decided  and  firm.  In  every 
respect,  mentally  and  morally,  he  was  fit  to  be  one  of 
a  number  of  Bishops,  cotemporaneously  performing  the 
duties  of  the  itinerant  General  Superintendency. 

Enoch  George  had  no  taste  for  systems  of  rules.  His 
soul  was  filled  with  religious  fervor.  He  was  always  in 
haste  to  dispatch  business.  Except  in  faith,  hope,  and 
love,  which  both  experienced,  there  was  little  similaiity 
between  George  and  McKendree. 

A  MASTERFUL  RULER  APPEARS  AMONG  THE  BISHOPS 

Not  until  Joshua  Soule  arrived  was  there  a  parlia- 
mentarian of  the  highest  type.  His  majesty,  manner,  and 
strength  overcame  common  minds  and  interested  the 
more  able.  His  resoluteness,  attention  to  business,  and 
knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  every  rule  made  him  capable 
of  commanding  an  audience  to  work  his  will.  Where  he 
presided  lawyers  and  judges  would  visit  the  Conference 
to  observe  his  management.  Some  of  them  smiled  but 
not  with  the  smile  of  scorn,  for  they  perceived  that  he 
had  a  grasp  of  his  subject — a  grasp  upon  the  rules  and  a 
grasp  upon  the  Conference.^ 

Elijah  Hedding  was  an  all-round  presiding  ofBcer, 
dignified,  benign,  firm  when  resisted,  and  in  personal 
religion  simple  as  a  child.  He  gave  every  function  of 
his  position  its  true  place,  drew  good  men  to  him,  without 
severity  reproved  the  frivolous  among  young  ministers 
and  cheered  the  aged. 

John  Emory  was  eminently  qualified  for  presiding. 
He  had  risen  to  a  successful  practice  of  the  law  when 

'Joshua  Soule  and  James  O.  Andrew  spent  their  later  years  as  Bishops  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 


390  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

he  began  to  devote  his  life  to  the  service  of  the  Church. 
"After  his  election  to  the  episcopacy  he  was  appointed 
to  preside  at  the  closing  session  of  the  same  General  Con- 
ference. He  promptly  repressed  the  confusion  which 
arose,  as  it  always  does  at  such  times,  securing  the  me- 
thodical and  satisfactory  transaction  of  the  business  re- 
maining to  be  adjusted."  He  died  before  he  could  disclose 
all  his  strength. 

James  O.  Andrew  represented  his  section  at  its  best. 
He  was  loved,  and  his  manner,  skill,  and  devotion  to  his 
duty  and  respect  for  his  office  endeared  him  to  his  con- 
temporaries in  the  episcopacy,  the  ministry,  and  the  laity. 

Beverly  Waugh  blended  good  sense  and  self-possession 
in  a  manner  which  added  greatly  to  assist  his  presidency. 
During  the  antislavery  conflict  he  was  designated  to 
preside  over  the  New  England  Conference,  and  was  asked 
if  he  would  allow  memorials  to  be  presented  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  He  asked  time  for  consideration,  and 
had  an  interview  first  with  the  older  and  more  conserva- 
tive preachers,  and,  secondly,  in  an  epistolary  way,  with 
those  who  wished  to  introduce  the  memorials.  He  con- 
cluded to  rule  the  motion  our  of  order,  and  after  giving 
his  reasons,  said :  "And  now,  brethren  and  fellow  laborers, 
allow  me  most  affectionately  to  address  you  for  a  moment. 
I  rei)eat  that  T  very  much  regret  the  necessity  which  has 
urged  me  to  this  decision ;  but  I  beg  you  to  believe  that 
in  the  best  light  which  I  have  been  able  to  obtain  it 
becomes  my  imperious  duty  to  take  this  ground.  Let 
this  not  produce  any  unpleasant  personal  feeling  toward 
each  other.  I  need  not  say  that  I  believe  you  are  most 
conscientious,  and,  of  course,  you  will  adopt  the  motion. 
Let  us  be  lovers  one  of  another  while  we  prosecute  our 
calling  in  the  work." 

Before  the  close  of  the  session,  on  motion  of  two  lead- 
ing Abolitionist  brethren,  he  was  thanked  for  his  digni- 


A  FREE  SCHOOL  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  LAW  391 


fied,  able,  impartial  presidency  and  invited  to  visit  them 
whenever  it  might  be  practicable. 

Thomas  A.  Morris  was  not  a  failure  as  a  General 
Superintendent.  The  common  people  met,  heard,  and 
obeyed  gladly.  He  had  some  of  the  elements  which  gave 
Benjamin  Franklin  his  popularity.  Many  are  the  inci- 
dents repeated  by  the  very  aged,  of  his  crisp  sentences 
and  his  paternal  aspect  as  he  uttered  them.  His  judg- 
ment also  was  sound;  he  was  adapted  to  his  time,  and 
lived  to  a  great  age. 

Of  Leonidas  L.  Hamline,  Thomas  M.  Eddy,  who  knew 
him,  wrote  that  "his  rulings  on  points  of  order  were 
ready,  and  rarely  controverted ;  without  parliamentary 
finesse  he  had  thoroughly  mastered  parliamentary  detail. 
His  decisions  on  law  points  were  clear.  His  judicial 
training  had  strengthened  his  natural  legal  turn  of  mind." 
As  he  was  ill  during  the  years  of  his  episcopacy,  he  fell 
into  various  eccentricities,  yet  when  able  to  preside  he 
performed  his  work  perfectly  so  far  as  his  deciding  par- 
liamentary questions  was  concerned.  As  an  orator,  few 
equaled  him. 

Edmund  S.  Janes  was  one  of  the  master  presidents. 
In  his  twentieth  year  he  began  the  study  of  law  and  was 
admitted  to  the  bar.  In  the  first  four  years  of  his  min- 
istry he  exhibited  business  qualities  of  a  high  order  and 
spirit  and  a  singular  clearness  of  statement  which  made 
intricate  financial  questions  intelligible.  This  led  to 
his  being  appointed  agent  for  Dickinson  College,  and  the 
same  qualities  which  secured  this  appointment  caused 
his  selection  as  financial  secretary  of  the  American  Bible 
Society.  This  position  he  filled  till  his  election,  in  1844, 
to  the  office  of  Bishop.  His  power  of  attention  was 
extraordinary.  He  had  a  strong  will  and  was  of  great 
readiness  in  speech.  He  had  a  high  estimate  of  his 
powers,  responsibilities,  and  the  prerogatives  of  his  office. 


392  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

No  labyiiutb  of  debate  was  too  iulricatc  for  him  to 
unravel. 

Levi  Scott  was  a  godly  man,  an  unaffected  friend,  and 
a  business  parliamentarian ;  he  could  have  presided  in 
any  Legislature  with  efficiency. 

Matthew  Simpson  was  a  president  rarely,  if  ever, 
disturbed  or  entangled.  His  Celtic  ancestry,  however, 
caused  him  to  thrust  back  vehemently  any  impu- 
tation upon  his  fairness.  One  of  the  best  of  men, 
distinguished  and  courteous,  was  interested  in  the  com- 
position of  a  committee.  The  Bishop  appointed  its 
members,  and  the  gentleman  referred  to,  intimated  that 
the  committee  had  been  "packed."  Instantly  Bishop 
Simpson,  with  flushed  face  and  intensity  of  voice, 
demanded  that  those  words  be  recanted.  As  the  speaker 
had  not  for  an  instant  thought  that  Bishop  Simpson 
would  pack  a  committee  in  the  ordinary  way,  but  had 
used  that  expression  to  show  that  one  side  of  the  case 
had  a  large  proportion  of  the  committee,  he  easily  satis- 
fled  the  Bishop's  feelings.  Bishop  Simpson  dispi'oved 
the  saying  that  a  great  orator  is  never  a  good  presiding 
officer. 

Osmon  C.  Baker  was  a  noteworthy  officer  when  all  was 
peaceful,  and,  as  his  gentle  spirit  spread  throughout  the 
Conferences,  peace  generally  prevailed.  His  balanced 
judgment,  his  delicacy  and  refinement,  made  him  a 
superior  president  and  cabinet  officer.  L.  D.  Barrows, 
himself  a  master  of  parliamentary  law,  and  an  author 
upon  the  subject,  declared  that  none  were  his  superiors  in 
parliamentary  usage. 

Edward  R.  Ames  had  a  powerful  personality.  His 
biographer  declares  that  he  had  the  governmental  faculty 
in  excess.  He  also  was  truly  a  master  of  assemblies. 
Tliough  he  sometimes  showed  an  austere  countenance  and 
indulged  a  stinging  wit,  and,  as  the  consequence,  was 


A  FREE  SCHOOL  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  LAW 


393 


occasionally  spoken  of  as  having  the  spirit  of  a  despot, 
beneath  all  these  symptoms  there  was  a  heart;  and  when 
he  had  overdone  the  pressure  upon  a  Conference  he 
would  sometimes  make  an  apology  that  went  to  the 
hearts  of  all  the  assembly.  A  modest,  but  very  intelligent 
minister,  who  rarely  took  part  in  Conference  discussions, 
presented  a  motion  relating  to  a  method  of  procedure. 
Bishop  Ames  peremptorily  said :  "The  Conference  ought 
not  have  its  time  wasted.  That  is  not  necessary.  It 
ought  to  be  done  in  such  a  way."  The  Conference  was 
amazed  and  indignant  that  such  a  man  should  receive 
so  curt  an  answer.  But,  probably  for  the  first  time  in 
his  life  he  rose  to  a  height  which  caused  all  sense  of 
diflSdence  to  disappear.  With  decision  he  said,  "I  did 
not  make  the  motion  to  elicit  the  opinion  of  the  Chair, 
but  to  ascertain  the  mind  of  the  Conference."  Instantly 
Bishop  Ames  said,  "You  are  right,  brother;  I  will  put 
the  motion  at  once." 

Davis  W.  Clark  rose  not  from  extreme  poverty  but  from 
a  home  which  required  him  to  make  his  own  way  in  the 
world.  He  was  self-made  in  the  best  sense,  and  discerning 
his  intellectual  needs,  he  turned  to  the  seminary  and  the 
college.  By  genuine  work  he  excelled  in  the  various 
spheres  of  minister,  principal,  and  editor.  After  having 
been  elected  it  was  soon  evident  that  he  would  not  err  in 
deciding  points  of  order  or  allow  disorder.  For  some 
years  he  was  a  neighbor  of  Bishop  Hedding,  and  from 
him  received  much  information  otherwise  unattainable. 
He  seemed  also  to  have  been  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  that 
godly  man.  Sent  forth  as  Bishop  during  the  Civil  War, 
he  exhibited  great  skill  in  readjusting  disturbed  Confer- 
ences and  founding  others. 

Edward  Thomson,  classic  in  tastes,  gentle  without 
losing  strength,  loved  by  students,  a  writer  of  fame, 
without  special  powers  of  control  in  the  General  Con- 


394  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


ference  or  the  Annual  Conference,  won  reverence  and 
elevated  in  thought  and  feeling  all  who  heard  his  strong, 
spiritual,  and  poetical  sermons  and  addresses  to  the 
young  ministers. 

Calvin  Kingsley  had  peculiarities  which  gave  him  a 
distinct  personality,  but  were  of  great  advantage  to  him 
both  as  an  educator  and  as  General  Superintendent.  He 
had  remarkable  powers  of  debate.  Far  from  the  country 
of  his  birth,  he  died  on  a  missionary  tour.  Travelers  in 
Syria  visit  his  grave  at  Beirut,  and  will  prolong  his 
memory  for  centuries. 

William  L.  Harris  had  no  superior  in  knowledge  of 
parliamentary  law.  Having  been  secretary  of  the  General 
Conference  for  several  terms  before  he  was  elected  to  the 
episcopacy,  he  had  every  opi)ortunity  to  perfect  himself 
in  the  functions  of  a  moderator  of  a  great  assembly;  and 
wherever  he  went  it  was  evident  that  he  was  a  man  for 
any  emergency. 

Randolph  S.  Foster  was  a  man  apart.  Gi-eat  thoughts 
and  great  words  occupied  his  mind,  his  tongue,  and  his 
hands.  His  presence  commanded  order.  Where  another 
would  have  been  troubled  by  confusion  which  he  could 
not  compose.  Bishop  Foster's  look  would  calm  the  storm. 
Only  when  he  became  irritated  and  attempted  to  rebuke 
the  causes  of  it  did  he  lose  command. 

Isaac  W.  Wiley  was  cultured,  fit  for  any  place  calling 
for  clear  thinking  and  forceful  speaking.  Some  thought 
him  cold,  but  it  was  only  on  the  surface.  His  friends 
compared  his  style  with  that  of  Addison.  From  chronic 
illness  he  suffered  much  and  died  in  China,  where  in  his 
earlier  years  he  had  been  a  medical  missionary.  His 
manner  and  knowledge  of  parliamentary  rules  enabled 
him  to  excel  in  preserving  order  and  system. 

Stephen  M.  Merrill  was  qualified  by  nature  to  investi- 
gate causes,  measures,  and  weigh  propositions,  so  that 


A  FREE  SCHOOL  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  LAW  395 


when  he  grew  to  manhood  he  readily  took  to  reading  and 
mastering  historical  works.  The  same  qualities  and 
tendencies  aided  him  in  the  study  of  systematic  theology. 
He  made  a  specialty  of  parliamentary  law  and  became  the 
mentor  of  several  of  his  colleagues.  Unique  in  the  episco- 
pacy, he  wielded  much  influence. 

Edward  G.  Andrews  was  thoroughly  educated,  an 
alumnus  of  Wesleyan  University,  and  afterward  principal 
of  a  preparatory  school,  which  under  his  control  exerted 
marked  influence  in  western  New  York.  At  the  time  of 
his  election  he  was,  and  had  been  for  some  years,  in 
churches  capable  of  reacting  for  good  upon  their  pastor. 
Almost  as  soon  as  he  was  ordained  he  began  anew  to 
study  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  in  less  than  four  yeai's  he  had  no  superior  in  influence 
in  the  episcopacy.  For  thirty-two  years  he  filled  the  po- 
sition with  constant  success,  and  after  he  ceased  to  visit 
the  Conferences  he  was  a  counselor  to  many,  a  forceful 
writer,  and  a  much-sought  preacher,  attending  all  the 
meetings  of  the  Boards,  of  which  he  was  a  member. 

Gilbert  Haven  was  evidently  a  genius,  with  a  mind 
quick  as  lightning  to  see,  and  a  tongue  to  speak  the 
thought.  To  attempt  to  describe  him  as  a  president  is  to 
attempt  the  impossible.  It  was  supposed  by  some  that 
his  becoming  a  General  Superintendent  might  introduce 
elements  of  unrest  or  conflict,  but,  without  losing  his 
characteristics,  he  became  a  suggestor  of  good  projects 
and  an  industrious  performer  of  his  routine  duty. 

Jesse  T.  Peck  on  occasions  rose  to  the  highest  concep- 
tion of  the  presiding  officer.  Ordinarily  he  indulged  his 
remarkable  facility  of  speech  to  an  excess.  He  was  sixty- 
one  years  of  age  when  he  was  elected  Bishop,  and  was 
already  showing  signs  of  lessening  vigor;  but  with  much 
industry  he  discharged  his  oflScial  obligations.  Fre- 
quently he  delivered  addresses  and  sermons  with  such 


396  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

eloquence  that  the  assembly  forgot  his  feebleness.  In  the 
Ecumenical  Conference  held  in  London  in  1881,  two  years 
before  his  death,  he  received  deservedly  high  honor  for  the 
manner  in  which  he  presided. 

Cyrus  D.  Foss  was  a  careful,  consistent,  and  command- 
ing presiding  officer.  At  no  time  did  he  lower  the  stand- 
ard of  the  best  of  his  gredecessors.  His  thorough  educa- 
tion, his  many  years  in  Brooklyn  and  the  city  of  New 
York,  and  his  presidency  of  Wesleyan  University  for 
several  years,  were  preparing  him  for  this  position  which 
touches  every  constituent  of  Christianity. 

John  F.  Hurst,  when  his  mind  was  intent  upon  the 
situation,  was  equal  to  the  normal  conditions  and  to  most 
of  the  emergencies  of  the  General  Conference  and  the 
Annual  Conferences.  In  the  latter  he  was  sometimes 
abstracted  when  routine  business  was  slowly  moving  on, 
especially  after  he  assumed  the  presidency  of  the  Ameri- 
can University  and  was  flooded  with  letters.  His  wide 
knowledge,  his  residence  in  Germany  in  the  Martin 
Mission  Institute  for  several  years,  and  his  presidency  of 
Drew  Theological  Seminary  all  combined  to  make  him  a 
useful  member  of  the  Board  of  Bishops. 

Erastus  O.  Haven  lived  but  a  few  months  after  his 
election.  He  was  in  his  sixtieth  year  when  he  entered 
the  Board,  but  his  adaptive  power  was  great  and  he  could 
not,  when  well,  fail  or  become  entangled  in  the  work 
assigned  him.  He  began  his  episcopal  career  with  the 
greatest  zeal  and  wherever  he  went  he  was  welcomed. 
The  editorship  of  Zion's  Herald  for  several  years,  the 
presidency  of  the  University  of  Michigan  and  of  the  North- 
western University,  also  the  office  of  chancellor  of  Syra- 
cuse University,  besides  being  eight  years  secretary  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  qualified  him  to  understand  the 
needs  of  every  part  of  the  United  States. 

William  X.  Ninde,  much  of  a  dreamer  in  the  best  sense. 


A  FREE  SCHOOL  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  LAW  397 

often  abstractedly  thinking  in  the  midst  of  confusion, 
and  not  notable  for  self-manifestation,  was  expected  by 
some  to  become  embarrassed  in  ruling  an  immense  assem- 
bly; but  from  the  first  he  was  perfect  in  the  presidency; 
this  was  the  result  of  close  study  of  parliamentary  law 
after  his  election  to  the  episcopacy.  He  was  elected  be- 
cause of  his  cultivation,  courtesy,  and  spotless  piety. 
After  he  began  to  travel  throughout  the  United  States  in 
the  discharge  of  his  duty,  preaching  to  great  concourses, 
and  called  upon  to  speak  in  every  form  of  meeting,  he 
became  a  powerful  orator;  perfect  in  his  former  method, 
he  became  so  in  his  latter. 

Willard  F.  Mallalieu,  as  his  French  oiigin  might  sug- 
gest, was  subject  to  an  accession  of  emotional  warmth, 
usually  of  a  spiritual  nature,  but  sometimes  of  criticism 
or  condemnation.  There  were  various  classes  whose  views 
and  works  were  not  in  harmony  with  his  sentiments  and 
principles.  He  was  firm  in  many  opinions  and  dewted  to 
evangelism.  To  his  friends  he  was  most  agreeable,  and 
when  he  became  aware  of  having  wounded  the  feelings  of 
others  he  was  effusive  in  making  peace.  As  a  president  he 
was  generally  liked,  and  reached  the  hearts  of  many. 
Parliamentary  practice  was  not  one  of  his  chief  studies, 
but  his  common  sense  and  experience  guided  him  through 
thickets  of  motions. 

Charles  H.  Fowler  possessed  a  variety  of  gifts  and  was 
always  accorded  attention  when  presiding.  His  native 
wit,  unusual  quickness  in  forming  a  judgment;  resolution, 
and  power  of  condensing  his  opinions  into  Anglo-Saxon 
words  made  him  all  sufficient.  If  a  suggestion  were  made 
that  his  decision  was  incorrect,  or  might  be  so,  he  listened 
with  interest,  and,  if  convinced,  acquiesced ;  but  if  the 
criticism  proved  to  be  wrong,  the  interrupter  was  liable 
to  receive  a  good-humored  rebuff. 

James  N.  FitzGerald,  a  lawyer  before  he  entered  the 


398  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


ministry,  was  of  the  type  who  give  extraordinary  atten- 
tion to  the  letter  of  the  rule,  and  careless  debaters  and 
motion-makers  were  in  danger  when  he  presided.  His 
mind  was  also  clear  upon  all  subjects  with  which  he  dealt. 
While  presiding  he  was  closely  attentive  to  business  and 
in  his  manner  would  have  graced  any  judge's  bench. 
When  in  good  health  he  left  nothing  undone  that  could  be 
reasonably  expected  from  him. 

Isaac  W.  Joyce  was  a  preacher  and  an  evangelist  by 
temperament  and  practice.  He  was  elected  because  his 
constituents  believed  that  such  a  man  was  needed  at  that 
time  in  the  episcopacy.  Those  who  did  not  know  him 
accepted  the  testimony  of  those  who  knew  him  well.  He 
proved  their  prognostication  true,  and  more.  As  a  pre- 
siding oflScer  he  was  of  average  capability  among  his 
colleagues,  and  left  a  savor  of  the  spirit  of  Christian  work 
behind  him  when  he  departed.  There  was  one  peculiarity 
in  his  preaching:  when  in  the  mood,  and  all  things  were 
favorable,  he  became  capable  of  preaching  to  the  Annual 
Conference  with  extraordinary  effect.  He  believed  that 
God  inspired  him,  and  under  such  circumstances  all  fear, 
anxiety,  or  loss  of  words  disappeared. 

John  P.  Newman.  This  noted  orator  had  but  a  few 
years  to  display  his  competency  in  the  episcopacy. 
He  was  known  throughout  the  country.  His  chaplaincy 
in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  his  many  years  of 
ministry  in  Washington,  his  tour  around  the  world  under 
an  important  commission  from  the  President,  his  re- 
markable report  on  his  return,  which  disappointed  those 
critics  who  declared  that  he  would  not  bring  home  any- 
thing of  worth  from  afar,  caused  many  to  flock  to  hear 
him  when  preaching  at  the  Conferences  and  presiding 
in  deliberations  and  also  in  the  few  General  Conferences 
occurring  before  his  death.  He  had  had  little  executive  ex- 
perience, and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  oratorical  tern- 


A  FREE  SCHOOL  OF  PARLIAMENTARY  LAW  399 


perament  and  action  had  controlled  him  all  his  life,  it 
was  a  wonder  to  many  that  he  performed  the  duties  of 
the  episcopacy  as  well  as  he  did. 

Daniel  A.  Goodsell  gave  great  promise  of  success  from 
the  first.  His  form  was  imposing,  his  voice  musical,  and 
his  mental  faculties  and  acquirements  were  adequate  to 
any  task.  Nor  was  this  anticipation  a  dream.  From 
1888  to  1909  he  filled  the  position  of  General  Superin- 
tendent, and  discharged  its  responsibilities  in  some  re- 
spects in  an  unusual  manner,  and  all  of  them  without 
failure.  As  preacher,  writer,  occasional  speaker,  careful 
in  forming  judgments  and  wary  in  publishing  them,  he 
justified  the  eulogy  given  to  him  of  being  "every  inch  a 
Bishop." 

Charles  C.  McCabe  resembled  none  of  his  predecessors 
or  successors  in  the  episcopacy.  Endowed  with  a  voice 
clear  and  sweet,  filled  with  sympathy  and  love,  impulsive 
as  a  child,  and  sometimes  as  penetrating  and  wise  as 
Abraham  Lincoln,  he  so  disliked  rules  that,  while  he  re- 
membered everything  else,  he  frequently  forgot  them.  He 
cannot  be  delineated  or  paralleled.  He  was  loved  by 
ministers  and  laymen  and  the  Annual  Conferences  often 
begged  with  unusual  warmth  that  he  might  be  sent  to 
them  again.  He  succeeded  in  part  because  there  was  none 
like  him ;  he  promoted  happiness  and  good  cheer  every- 
where and  did  great  good  in  his  day  and  generation. 

Henry  Spellmeyer  was  well  educated.  All  his  public 
career  was  in  the  pastorate.  He  was  so  admired  and 
loved  that  he  was  frequently  recalled  to  his  charges,  all 
of  which  were  within  a  small  area.  After  being  appointed 
to  important  positions  he  was  elected  largely  for  his 
ability  showTi  in  the  conduct  of  an  important  denomina- 
tional responsibility  while  yet  a  pastor.  He  proved  a 
precise  and  concise  Bishop.  He  never  forgot;  he  never 
lost  his  self-control,  and  everywhere  honored  the  Church 


400  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 

of  Christ,  aud  in  particular  that  part  of  it  known  as  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 

These  are  they  with  whom  the  Church  intrusted  its 
deepest,  broadest,  and  most  grave  responsibility,  and  who 
have  died  in  its  service. 

It  is  not  in  mortal  man  to  be  perfect,  as  was  the 
Master  and  Lord.  But  these  faithfully  labored  in  his 
vineyard,  and  it  brought  forth  fruit  unto  eternal  life. 

From  their  labors  they  rest;  and  the  remembrance 
of  them  is  a  perpetual  blessing  to  the  Church. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


The  Journals  of  the  General  Conferences. 

The  successive  Disciplines  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Minutes  of  the  early  Annual  Conferences. 

Early  volumes  of  the  Methodist  Review,  The  Christian  Advocate, 

and  Zion's  Herald. 
Alexander,  Gross.    History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 

South,  Vol.  XI  American  Church  History  Series. 
Asbury,  Francis.    Journal.    Three  Vols.     New  York,  Lane  & 

Scott,  1852. 

Atkinson,  John.  Centennial  History  of  American  Methodism. 
New  York,  Phillips  &  Hunt,  1884. 

Baker,  Osmon  C.  A  Guide-Book  in  the  Administration  of  the 
Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  New  York, 
Nelson  &  Phillips,  1878. 

Bangs,  Nathan.  A  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Twelfth  edition,  revised  and  corrected.  Four  Vols.  New 
York,  Carlton  &  Porter,  1860.  Life  of  the  Rev.  Freeborn 
Garrettson,  Compiled  from  His  Printed  and  Manuscript  Jour- 
nals and  other  Authentic  Documents.  Fifth  edition.  New 
York,  Carlton  &  Porter. 

Bascom,  H.  B.  Methodism  and  Slavery.  Appeal  of  the  Southern 
Commissioners.  Nashville,  Tennessee,  Southern  Methodist 
Publishing  House,  1846. 

Bond,  Thomas  E.  Economy  of  Methodism  Illustrated  and  De- 
fended.   Appeal  to  Methodists. 

Clark,  D.  W.  Life  and  Times  of  Rev.  Elijah  Hedding,  D.D.  New 
York,  Carlton  &  Phillips,  1855. 

Crooks,  George  R.  Life  of  Bishop  Mattheio  Simpson,  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church.    Harper  &  Brothers,  1890. 

Drinkhouse,  Edward  J.  History  of  Methodist  Reform.  Two 
Vols.  Board  of  Publication  of  the  Methodist  Protestant 
Church,  1899. 

Drew,  Samuel.    The  Life  of  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.  New 

York,  J.  Soule  &  T.  Mason.  1818. 
Emory,  John.    A  Defense  of  "Our  Fathers."  and  of  the  Original 

Organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.    New  York, 

Carlton  &  Porter. 

403 


404  CONSTITUTIONAL  AND  PARLIAMENTARY  HISTORY 


Emory,  Robert.  History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church.  Revised  and  brought  down  to  1856  by  W.  P. 
Strickland.    New  York,  Carlton  &  Porter. 

Flood,  Tlieodore  L.,  and  John  W.  Hamilton  (editors).  Lives  of 
Methodist  Bishops.    New  York,  Phillips  &  Hunt,  1882. 

Hamline,  L.  L.    Sermons  and  Miscellaneous  Works. 

Harris,  William  L.  The  Constitutional  Powers  of  the  General 
Conference,  with  a  Special  Application  to  the  Subject  of 
Slaveholding.    Cincinnati,  1860. 

Hibbard,  F.  G.  Biography  of  Rev.  Leonidas  L.  Hamline,  D.D. 
New  York,  Phillips  &  Hunt,  1880. 

Lednum,  John.  History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  Methodism 
in  America,  1859. 

Lee,  Jesse.  A  Short  History  of  the  Methodists  in  the  United 
States  of  America.    Baltimore,  1810. 

Lee,  Leroy  M.    Life  of  Jesse  Lee. 

McCaine,  Alexander.  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Epis- 
copacy. 

McTyeire,  Holland  N.  A  History  of  Methodism.  Nashville, 
Tennessee,  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House,  1884. 

Matlack,  Lucius  C.  The  History  of  American  Slavery  and  Meth- 
odism from  1780  to  IS'fi,  and  History  of  the  Wesleyan  Con- 
nection of  America.  Two  Parts.  New  York,  1849.  The  Anti- 
Slavery  Struggle  and  Triumphs  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.    New  York,  Phillips  &  Hunt,  1881. 

Merrill,  S.  M.  A  Digest  of  Methodist  Law.  Cincinnati,  Cranston 
&  Stowe. 

Mitchell,  James.    Life  and  Times  of  Levi  Scott.    New  York, 

Phillips  &  Hunt,  1885. 
Neely,  Thomas  B.     The  Evolution  of  Episcopacy  and  Organic 

Methodism.    New  York,  Phillips  &  Hunt,  1888.    A  History 

of  the  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Governing  Conference 

in  Methodism.    Cincinnati  and  New  York,  1892. 
Paine,  Robert.    Life  and  Times  of  William  McEendree.  Two 

Vols.     Southern    Methodist    Publishing   House,  Nashville, 

Tennessee,  1874. 
Phoebus,  William.    Memoirs  of  Bishop  Whatcoat. 
Phoebus,  George  A.    Beams  of  Light  on  Early  Methodism  in 

America.    New  York,  Phillips  &  Hunt,  1887. 
Porter,  James.    A  Comprehensive  History  of  Methodism.  New 

York,  Phillips  &  Hunt. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


405 


Redford,  A.  H.  History  of  the  Organization  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South.  Southern  Methodist  Publishing 
House,  1871. 

Ryerson,  Egerton.  Canadian  Methodism;  Its  Epochs  and  Char- 
acteristics.   Toronto,  1882. 

Sherman,  David.  History  of  the  Revisions  of  the  Discipline  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Third  edition.  New  York, 
Hunt  &  Eaton,  1890. 

Simpson,  Matthew.  Cyclopedia  of  Methodism.  Philadelphia. 
Everts  &  Stewart,  1878.    One  Hundred  Years  of  Methodism. 

Smith,  George  G.  The  Life  and  Letters  of  James  Osgood  Andrew. 
Nashville,  Tennessee,  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House, 
1882. 

Stevens,  Abel.  History  of  Methodism.  Three  Vols.  New  York, 
Carlton  &  Porter,  1858.  Life  and  Times  of  Nathan  Bangs, 
D.D.  New  York,  Carlton  &  Porter,  1863.  History  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  New  York,  Carlton  &  Porter, 
1864.  The  Centenary  of  American  Methodism.  New  York, 
1866.    Supplementary  History  of  American  Methodism. 

Strickland,  W.  P.  The  Pioneer  Bishop;  or.  Life  and  Times  of 
Francis  Asbury.    New  York,  1858. 

Tigert,  John  J.  A  Constitutional  History  of  American  Episcopal 
Methodism.  Second  edition,  revised  and  enlarged.  Nash- 
ville, Tennessee,  Publishing  House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South. 

Tyerman,  L.    The  Life  and  Times  of  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  M.A., 

the  Founder  of  the  Methodists.   Three  Vols.    London,  Hodder 

&  Stoughton,  1870. 
Wakeley,  J.  B.  Lost  Chapters  Recovered  from  the  Early  History 

of  American  Methodism.    New  York,  Wilbur  B.  Ketcham. 
Ware,  Thomas.    Sketches  of  his  otcn  Life  and  Travels.  New 

York,  1839. 

Wesley,  John.  Works.  Seven  Vols.  New  York,  Carlton  &  Porter, 
1856. 

Note. — The  foregoing  catalogue  includes  but  a  minority  of  the 
volumes  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  this  work. 


INDEX 


Adams,  Thomas,  cited,  178 
Africa,  mission  in,  222;  discussion 

of  in  Episcopal  Address  of  1856, 

222;  argument  concerning,  223; 

vote  of  Conference  relative  to, 

226 

Ames,  Edward  R.,  cited,  287,  291, 
392 

Andrew,  James  O.,  cited,  192; 
connection  of  with  slavery,  258; 
his  explanation  of,  258;  re- 
quested to  resign  office  of 
Bishop,  259;  defense  of  him- 
self, 263;  proposition  to  defer 
his  case,  265;  status  of  voted  by 
General  Conference,  272;  re- 
ported on  by  committee  of 
nine,  272;  address  of  to  pubhc, 
277;  Bishop  Soule's  invitation 
to,  277;  cited,  390 

Andrews,  Edward  G.,  cited,  395 

Articles  of  Religion  of  Church  of 
England,  nimaber  of  reduced,  50 

Asbury,  Francis,  birth  of,  13; 
missionary  to  United  States, 
13;  views  of,  14;  appointed 
Assistant,  14;  cited,  16;  Journal 
of,  quoted,  18,  20,  23,  28,  30, 
55,  61,  70,  71,  73,  96;  removal 
of  from  Baltimore  to  New 
York,  20;  ilhiess  of,  20;  seclu- 
sion of,  24;  his  Baltimore  Con- 
ference, 27;  elected  Superin- 
tendent, 48;  ordained  deacon, 
49;  just  claim  to  prominence 
of,  116;  hardships  of  in  travel- 
ing, 194;  cited,  388 

Atkinson,  John,  cited,  47 


Baker,  Osmon  C,  entrance  of 
into  ministry,  203;  quoted,  203; 
cited,  204,  227,  291,  295,  392 

Bangs,  Nathan,  quoted,  12,  53, 
57,  60,  65,  96,  109,  116,  130, 
186,  231,  241,  242,  243,  245, 
268,  339,  345,  346;  cited,  101, 
107 

Baptists,  the,  cited,  22,  37 

Bascom,  Henry  B.,  protest  of,  271 

Beale,  OUver,  cited,  107 

Bell,  Thomas,  cited,  12 

"Binding  minute,"  the,  50;  up- 
held by  Coke,  54 

Bishop,  first  use  of  term,  56;  not 
of  "divine  origin,"  176;  use  of 
term  by  American  Methodists, 
182;  duties  of  a,  195;  powers  of 
a  when  presiding  in  General 
Conference,  202;  amenabihty  of, 
209;  provision  of  Discipline  re- 
garding, 211;  resignation  of  a, 
212;  life  tenure  of  a,  216;  mis- 
sionary, 222;  proposed  veto 
power  for,  348-352 

"Bishops  for  races  and  languages," 
354-356 

Black,  WiUiam,  cited,  43 

Boardman,  Richard,  cited,  13,  14, 
16,  19 

Boehm,  Henry,  cited,  102 

Book  Concern,  cited,  90 

Boundaries  of  Conferences,  estab- 
hshed,  81;  reasons  for  en- 
larging, 82 

Bowman,  Thomas,  quoted,  198 

Boyer,  Caleb,  cited,  47 

Branch,  Thomas,  cited,  110 


408 


INDEX 


Bruce,  Philip,  cited,  102,  105,  110 
Burke,  William,  cited,  105,  111 
Burns,   Francis,   elected  Bishop, 

226,  ordained,  227 
Burwash,  Dr.,  quoted,  167 

Canada,  unsatisfactory  state  of 
affairs  in,  241;  adjustment  of 
diflficulties  in,  243;  claims  of 
relative  to  Book  Concern,  245 

Capers,  William,  appeal  of,  257; 
resolutions  introduced  by,  270 

Cartwright,  Peter,  quoted,  120, 
126,  265,  302 

Cassell,  Leonard,  cited,  110 

Chandler,  William  P.,  cited,  102 

Chartered  Fund,  establishment  of, 
83;  cited,  90 

"Christmas  Conference,"  mem- 
bers of,  47;  proceedings  of,  47; 
not  a  General  Conference,  64 

Church  in  the  making,  a,  44 

Clark,  Davis  W.,  quoted,  109; 
cited,  294,  302,  393 

Clergy,  English  Church,  return  of 
to  England  during  Revolution, 
37 

Coate,  Samuel,  cited,  112 
Coke,  Thomas,  discussed,  38; 
invited  to  confer  with  Wesley, 
39;  ordained  Superintendent, 
40;  arrival  in  America,  42;  pre- 
siding officer  at  "Christmas 
Conference,"  47;  elected  Su- 
perintendent, 48;  administra- 
tion of  criticized,  52;  letter  of 
to  General  Conference  of  1808, 
65;  settUng  the  status  of,  83; 
departure  of  to  preside  over 
English  Conference,  86;  ap- 
pearance of  at  Perry  Hall,  174; 
proposition  of  regarding  ar- 
rangement of  Conference,  202; 


motions  of  concerning  rules, 
362;  cited,  388 

Colbert,  Rev.  William,  cited,  84; 
quoted,  85 

Cole,  LeRoy,  cited,  47 

Comfort,  Silas,  cited,  254 

Conference,  Methodist,  origin  of, 
6;  when  first  called,  6;  com- 
position of,  6;  English  minutes 
of,  13;  date  of  first  American, 
16;  date  of  second,  19;  session 
of  1778,  23;  of  1781,  30;  ses- 
sions of  1782,  34;  of  1783,  34; 
twelfth  session  of,  35 

Conferences,  Annual,  number  and 
times  of  meeting,  387 

Conflict,  first  ecclesiastical,  24 

Constitution,  written,  creation  of, 
119;  the  word,  121;  differences 
between  that  of  Church  and 
the  United  States,  133;  inter- 
pretation of  separate  parts  of, 
137;  on  ministerial  delegates,  re- 
vised, 145;  revision  of,  321;  un- 
successful attempts  to  change, 
327 

Controversies,    between  Church 

and  seceders,  129 
Cooper,  Ezekiel,  cited,  91, 101,105, 

107, 112,  116;  quoted,  340-343 
Council,  the,  establishment  of,  58; 
first  sitting  of,  60;  second  meet- 
ing of,  61;  a  danger  to  Hberties 
of  the  people,  63;  objections  of 
Lee  answered  by,  63 
Council  of  Trent,  action  of,  171 
Country,  agitated  state  of,  33 
Creighton,  James,  cited,  40 
Cromwell,  James  O.,  cited,  47 
Crowder,  Thomas,  quoted,  260 

Day,  James  R.,  ordination  as 
Bishop  declined  by,  213 


INDEX 


400 


Debate,  abhorrence  of,  380;  "with- 
out debate"  illustrated,  380-381) 
Decisions,  by  Bishops,  3li!l-373 
Declaration    and    protest  from 
Southern  delegates,  270;  reply 
to,  275 

Deed  of  settlement  for  churches, 
83 

Delegates,  reserve,  first  appear- 
ance of,  364 
Dickins,  John,  cited,  23,  2S,  30,  42 
Disagreements,  19 
Discipline,  the,  perfecting  of,  47; 
revision  of,  00;  "notes"  on,  124; 
adoption  of,  103;  chapter  in  on 
slavery  changed,  288 
District  Conferences,  series  of,  64 
Donaldson,  Stephen,  cited,  173 
Draper,  Samuel,  cited,  107 
Dromgoole,  Edward,  cited,  28,  47 

Ellis,  Reuben,  cited,  2S,  47 
Embury,  Philip,  cited,  8;  preach- 
ing success  of,  9 
Emigrants,    arrival    of   in  New 
York,  8 

Emory,  John,  quoted,  186;  cited, 
389' 

Episcopacy,  Methodist,  derived 
from  John  Wesley,  173;  de- 
fended, 184;  different  from  that 
of  "third  order,"  188;  how  it 
could  be  abolished,  189;  vindi- 
cation of  ordered  prepared,  191; 
consideration  of  by  Bishops,  191 

Everett,  Joseph,  cited,  47 

Fisk,  Wilbur,  ordination  as  Bishop 

declined  by,  213;  cited,  2.52 
FitzGerald,  James  N.,  cited,  397 
Fletcher,  John,  cited,  40 
FoUeson,  James,  cited,  95 
Fonerden,  Adam,  cited,  173 


Forest,  Jonathan,  cited,  47 
Foss,  Cyrus  D.,  cited,  390 
Foster,  Randolph  S.,  cited,  394 
Fowler,  Charles  II.,  cited,  397 
Friends,  Society  of,  citeil,  22 

(Jarrettson,  Freeborn,  receivetl  on 
trial,  20;  cited,  28,  31,  43,  47, 
101,  237;  quoted,  30,  32.  53 

(jarrison,  William  Lloyd,  opposi. 
tion  of  to  slavery,  251 

Gatch,  Journal  of  quoted.  22 

General  Conference,  first  regular, 
64;  origin  of.  65;  relation  of 
Coke  to,  65;  attitude  of  Asbuiy 
toward,  66;  when  and  where 
held,  67;  made  permanent.  68; 
action  of  concerning  Bishops. 
68;  law-making  power  trans- 
ferred to,  69;  session  of  1796, 
81;  Journal  of  ordered  pub- 
lished, 86;  session  of  1800,  87; 
session  of  1804,  89;  dis.satisfac- 
tion  with  composition  of.  93; 
inequality  of,  03;  steps  leading 
to  delegated  form  of,  94;  last 
non-dele,gated,  101 ;  great  leaders 
in,  101;  concerning  perpetua- 
tion of,  102;  momentous  tran-s- 
actions  of,  104;  method  of  call- 
ing a  special,  148;  power  of  to 
depose  a  Bishop,  123;  Coast i- 
tution  of,  128;  essentials  of  a 
constitutional,  139;  changes  in 
ratio  of  representation  in,  140; 
questions  of  "seniority"  in,  144: 
dates  of  convening  regulai-,  146; 
suitability  of  May  for,  147; 
ready  for  business,  151;  "pow- 
ers" of,  152;  qiionmi  in,  152; 
presidency  of,  153;  powers  re- 
served by,  199;  question  of 
eUgibility  of  women  to  seats  in, 


410 


INDEX 


309;  seats  in  of  four  women 
elected  declined,  1513;  equal  rep- 
resentation in  demanded,  314; 
such  representation  in  secuied, 
317;  difficulties  of  session  of 
1844,  353;  peculiar  close  of  ses- 
sion of  1812,  365;  strict  at- 
tendance in  a  duty,  374 

General  Superintendency,  a  re- 
vered office,  221 

(ieorge,  Enoch,  cited,  102,  110,  389 

cm,  William,  cited,  47 

(ilendenning,  WilUam,  cited,  47; 
opposition  of  to  Asbury,  70 

(loodsell,  Daniel  A.,  cited,  3!)'.) 

(ioucher,  John  F.,  cited,  173 

(Ireat  presiding  officers,  proces- 
sion of,  388-400 

Green,  A.  L.  P.,  cited,  282 

Green,  Lemuel,  cited,  47 

(jTuber,  Jacob,  cited,  S!) 

llaggerty,  Jolm,  cited,  47 

Iliiine,  John,  cited,  15 

llaralii\e,  Leonidas  Lent,  resigna- 
tion of  as  Bishop  tendered,  214; 
resignation  of  accepted,  216; 
quoted,  217,  263;  speech  of 
relative  to  Andrew,  262;  argu- 
ments of  attacked,  262;  cited, 
391 

Hammett,  William,  secession  of, 
80 

Harding,  F.  A.,  appeal  of,  257 
Harris,  William  L.,  quoted,  134; 

cited,  394 
Haven,  Erastus  O.,  cited,  30(1 
Haven,  Gilbert,  cited,  395 
Hazardous  experiment,  a,  58 
Heck,  Barbara,  cited,  8,  11 
Hedding,  Elijah,  cited,  101,  108, 

192,   244,  260,   389;  value  of 

notes  of,  203 


Hitt,  Daniel,  cited,  112 
Hurst,  John  F.,  cited,  396 

Indorsements,  103 
Itinerant    General  Superintend- 
ency, 170 
Ivey,  Richard,  cited,  47 

Janes,  Edmimd  S.,  cited,  287,  391 

Jefferson,  Thomus,  on  parliamen- 
tary law,  374 

John  Street,  site  leased  in,  10; 
place  of  Coke's  first  sermon,  42 

Joj'ce,  Isaac  W.,  cited,  398 

Kendall,  David,  cited,  237 
King,  John,  cited,  13,  14,  16 
Kingsley,  Calvin,  cited,  394 
Kobler,  Rev.  John,  cited,  84 

Lambert,  Jeremiah,  cited,  47 

Law,  parliamentary,  the  "trick" 
in,  376;  strategy  in,  377;  un- 
paralleled free  school  of,  387 

Lay  delegation,  290,  298,  307, 
312;  sentiment  concerning  in 
1852-56,  291;  question  referred 
to  committee,  292;  first  "stand- 
ing committee"  on,  292;  com- 
mittee of  three  relative  to,  294 ; 
convention  of  advocates  of,  294  ; 
division  of  popular  will  con- 
cerning, 296;  preamljle  and 
resolution  dealing  with,  297; 
personnel  of  conflicting  depu- 
tations of,  298;  view  of  eminent 
Methodists  on,  303;  votes  in 
Annual  Conferences  on,  304, 
305;  plan  relative  to,  305;  new 
problem  concerning,  307;  re- 
lationship of  women  to,  308 

Lee,  Jesse,  quoted,  19,  22,  26,  31, 
34,  69,  84,  98,  212,  360;  treat- 


INDEX 


411 


ment  of,  63;  cited,  102, 105, 109; 

motion  of  regarding  rules,  362 
Lee,  L.  M.,  quoted,  104,  111 
Legislation,  equitable  methods  of, 

93 

"Log  Meeting  House,"  cited,  11 
Lord's  Supper,  the,  question  con- 
cerning, 22 
Losee,  William,  oiled,  237 

Mallalieu,  Willard  F.,  cited.  3!)7 
Mather,  Alexander,  cited,  1.5 
Maxfield,  Thomas,  quoted,  38 
McCabe,  Charles  C,  cited,  300 
McCIaskey,  John,  cited,  87,  92, 

102,  105,  108,  115,  116 
McCHntock,  John,  cited,  IKi 
McFerrin,  J.  B.,  resolution  offered 

by,  271 

McKendree,  William,  cited,  72,  96, 
101,  102,  105,  388;  influenced 
by  O'Kelly,  77;  quoted,  7S,  203; 
rlectetl  IMshop,  117;  addressed 
in  Conference  by  I3isliop  As- 
bury,  202;  certificate  of  ordi- 
nation of,  219;  address  of  to 
all  Annual  Conferences,  243; 
pure  motives  of,  344 

McMahon,  Mrs.  Mattic,  letter  of, 
320 

McTyeire,  Holland  N.,  quoted, 
187;  cited,  190;  on  Plan  of 
Separation,  279 

Merrill,  Stephen  M.,  quoted,  134, 
204,  205,  207,  301 ;  cited,  394 

Methodism,  Wesleyan,  in  Amer- 
ica, 8;  important  personages  in 
origin  of,  11;  American,  organ- 
ized, 16;  foundations  of,  17; 
rules  governing  in  America,  17; 
progressive  spirit  of,  237;  en- 
tanglements in  Canadian  branch 
of,  238 


"Methodist,"  an  opprobrious  term, 
3;  awakening  in  England,  8 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or- 
ganization of,  37,  47;  initial 
years  of,  51 ;  episcopacy  of,  171 ; 
separation  of  Canadian  Meth- 
odism from.  237;  bisection  of. 
249,  256.  265.  277;  Northern 
secession  from.  256 

Methodist  Episcopal  Churcli. 
South,  establishment  of,  277: 
invitation  of  to  Bishops  Soule 
and  Andrew,  27S 

Methodist  Magnzine.  The,  estab- 
lishment of,  S3;  quoted,  180 

Methodist  Protestant  Church, 
cited,  217 

Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  ar- 
ticle from,  267 

Methodists,  faith  of,  168 

Ministers'  and  Laymen's  Union, 
establishment  of,  287;  object 
of,  287 

Morris,  Thomas  A.,  cited,  192, 
256,  278,  287,  391;  quoted,  266 

Neely,  Thomas  B.,  cited,  306; 
valuable  information  by,  232; 
minority  report  presented  by, 
313 

Newman,  John  P.,  cited,  398 
Ninde,  William  X.,  cited,  396 

Office  of  presiding  elder,  appear- 
ance of,  51 

O'Kelly,  James,  cited,  47;  con- 
flict of  with  Asbury,  65;  defeat 
and  secession  of,  70;  results  of 
the  division  made  by,  75; 
Church  founded  by,  76;  war  of 
pamphlets  concerning,  78;  her- 
esy of,  79;  protracted  terra  of 
as  presiding  elder,  197 


412 


INDEX 


Olin,  Stephen,  cited,  261 
Omission,  unfortunate,  29 
Organization,  beginnings  of,  359 
Ostrander,  Daniel,  cited,  108,  112, 
IK) 

Otterbcin,  William,  cited,  49 
Owens,  Richard,  cited,  11 

Paine,    Bishop,    cited,    9(i.  IJol; 

quoted,  98,  109,  :i.>l 
Parliamentary  history,  ;5.')7 
Pawson,  John,  quoted,  ISO 
Peck,  Jesse  T.,  cited,  262,  :59.) 
Phccbus,  Rev.   William,  (juotcd, 

86;  cited,  47,  105 
Pickering,  George,  cited,  101,  105, 

110,  111 

Pierce,  George  1''.,  c|uotefl,  261; 

views  of  antagonized,  262 
Pierce,  Lovick,  cited,  25!) 
Pigman,  Ignatius,  cited,  47 
Pilmoor,  Joseph,  cited,  i:>,  14,  16, 

19 

Porter,  James,  (puitctl,  ■_'()7 
Poythress,  ]'"i-anois,  cited,  47 
Preachers,  I'^nglish,  unpopularity 
of,  21 ;  self-ordained,  25;  ^idinin- 
istration  of  saci'ameiit.-:  liy,  2() 
Presbyterians,  cited,  22,  :57 
Presbyterian  Church,  g(j\ crnment 

of  <liscusscd,  1S9 
Presiding  eldership,  restriction  of 
term,  196;  discussion  of,  :?2()- 
'■VM;  resolution  concerning,  M:!5; 
GenciMl  ('(inf{>rence  action  on, 
:}:?S:  fm-liier  legislation  on, 
m5;    Hnngs'   summary  of  do- 
bate  on,  H45:  final  disposition 
of  question  of,  817 
Property,  Church,  question  of  ad- 
justment, 279;  conditional  reso- 
lution concerning,  280;  begin- 
ning  of   litigation,    280;  suit 


relative  to,  281;  case  taken  to 
Supreme  Court,  282;  decision  of 
Court,  283;  pro  rata  division  of 
ordered,  285;  bitterness  of  liti- 
gants concerning,  286 
Proviso,  the,  for  changing  the 
Restricti\'e  Rules,  230 

Randle,  Josias,  cited,  105 
Rankin,  Thomas,  conversion  of, 
15;  arrival  of  in  America,  15; 
appointed  Superintendent,  15; 
credentials  of,  16;  vigorous  ad- 
ministration of,  19 
Reed,  Nelson,  cited,  47,  102,  105, 
111 

Reformation,  Protestant,  ques- 
tions raised  by,  171 

Regulations,  committee  to  frame, 
105 

Restrictive  Rule,  the  First,  157; 
the  Third,  170,  184,  193,  201, 
209,  222;  resolution  to  enlarge 
the  Third,  cited,  222;  Fourth, 
Fifth,  and  Sixth,  228-234; 
Sixth,  suggested  change  in,  273; 
opinions  on  proposed  change  in, 
274 

Restrictive  Rules,  method  for  re- 
pealing, altering,  or  adding  to 
the,  230;  difficulties  in  plan 
s\ibmitted  concerning,  231 

Revolutionary  War,  21;  views 
held  by  ministers  at  close  of, 
172 

Roberts,    John    Wright,  elected 

Bishop,  227 
Roberts,  Robert  R.,  cited,  102. 

388 

Roszel,  Stephen  ('..,  cited,  102, 
105,  110,  111 

Rules  and  regulations,  for  gov- 
erning   General  Conferences, 


INDEX 


413 


360;  first  regularly  constructed 
Code  of,  361;  additions  to,  362, 
364;  progressive  enlargement 
of,  361;  reduction  and  increase 
in  number,  366;  tiiose  of  session 
of  1908,  366;  rational  use  of,  374 
Ruter,  Martin,  cited.  102 
Hyerson,  William,  cited,  24 

Sabin,  Elijah  R.,  cited,  108 

Sacramental  controversy,  esti- 
mate of  the,  31 

Sargent,  Thomas,  cited,  lOS 

Scott,  Levi,  quoted.  190;  visit  of  to 
Africa,  222;  cited,  287,  28S.  392 

Shadford,  George,  cited,  1."),  1(5 

Shinn,  Asa,  cited,  102 

Simpson,  Matthew,  resolution  of- 
fered by,  271;  cited,  287,  292, 
392 

Slavery,  a  troublesome  element  in 
Methodism.  249;  first  general 
rule  against,  249;  extraordinary 
changes  relative  to,  2.50;  or- 
ganized opposition  to,  251; 
General  Conference  action  con- 
cerning, 2.52;  Southern  agita- 
tion about,  25.5;  final  changes 
in  Discipline  regarding.  28(> 

Smith,  Henry,  quoted,  202 

Smith,  .James,  cited,  108 

Smith,  John,  cited,  47 

Snethen,  Nicholas,  argument  of 
concerning  abolition  of  the 
episcopacy,  131;  quoted,  217 

Soule,  Joshua,  cited,  101,  105, 
108.  no,  111,  116,  192,  266; 
author  of  plan  of  delegated 
General  Conference,  186;  ordi- 
nation as  Bishop  declined  hy, 
213;  (luoted.  265.  266,  268, 
letter  of  to  General  Conference 
of  1848,  278;  election  as  Bishop 


noted,  336;  resolution  dealing 

with,   336;   a   masterful  ruler 

.•unong  Bi.^^hops,  389 
Sparks,  Robert,  cited,  lOS 
Si>ellmeycr,  Henry,  cited,  399 
Standards,  the,  162 
Stevens,    Abel,    ritrd,    11,  292; 

quoted,  26,  1.59,  2.52 
Strawbridge,   Robert,   cited,  10, 

11,  14 

Stringfield,  Thomas,  quoted.  2()0 
Superannuation  of  Bishops,  how 

determined,  220 
Taylor,  Thomas,  .irrival  of.   1 1  ; 

letter  of  to  Wesley.  11;  cited, 

252 

Thoburn.  James  M.,  elected  Mis- 
sionary Bishop,  227 
Thomson,  Edward,  cited,  3!13 
Tiedman,  Christopher  (!.,  rited, 
123 

Tigert,  John  J.,  cited,  23.  2S,  29, 

30,  42,  115,  122;  quoted,  186 
Time  limit,  changes  in,  197 

Union,  conditions  of,  27 

^'asey.  Thomas,  cited,  10,  17; 
arrival  in  America,  42;  travels 
of,  43 

\'oting,  law  governing,  368 

Ward,  Francis,  cited,  108 

Ware,  Thomas,  cited,  47,  101, 
105;  quoted,  48;  rebuked  \>y 
Asbury,  62;  autobiography  of, 
quoted,  62 

Watters.  William,  cited,  23,  28, 

31,  47;  quoted.  30,  48 
Waugh    Beverly,  cited,  192.  214, 

216.  2.56.  265.  2(1(1.  27S,  2S7.  390 
Webb,  Captain  Thomas,  cited.  9, 
16;  licensed  as  lay  preacher.  10; 
valuable  services  of,  10;  retire- 


414 


INDEX 


ment  of  as  British  oRicor,  10; 
active  work  of,  10;  couuiiciidcd, 
12;  demand  made  by,  14;  ad- 
dress of  to  preachers,  15 

Wesley,  Charles,  originator  of 
movement  at  Oxford,  3;  threat- 
ened with  excommunication,  .5; 
controversies  of,  178;  letter  of 
to  ,Iohn  Wesley,  179;  quoted  on 
"Separation,"  ISO 

Wesley,  .John,  society  foinided  by, 
3;  recognition  of,  3;  ancf^stry  jf, 
3;  dominating  personality  of,  4; 
mental  and  spiritual  conflicts 
of,  4,  (ierman  Moravians  visited 
by,  4;  doctrinal  differences  of 
with  Whitefield,  5;  plan  pre- 
l>ared  by,  5;  mobs  against,  T); 
defended  from  false  accusa- 
tions, 5;  class  meeting  foimded 
by,  5;  defense  of  against  charge 
of  usurpation,  7;  not  engaged 
in  forming  a  eh\irch,  7;  letter 
from,  14;  unfor1\ui;ite  interfer- 
ence of,  22;  tremendous  prob- 
lem confronting,  37;  explana- 
tory letter  of,  41;  his  choice  of 
Garrettson,  and  result,  52;  op- 
posed, 54;  status  of  in  American 
Methodism,   57;   "Notes,  Ser- 


mons,  .Tiul   Minutes"  of,  163; 
discrepancies  in  number  of  ser- 
mons  of,    165;   High  Chinch 
views   of,    177;    ministers  or- 
dained by,  179;  his  defense  of 
"Separation,"   180;  opposition 
of  to  name  of  "Bishop,"  188 
Whatcoat,  Richard,  cited,  40,  47, 
48,  388;  arrival  in  America,  42; 
first  sermon  of,  42;  travels  of, 
43;  elected  Bishop,  87 
Whedon,  D.  D,,  appeal  of,  252 
Whitefield,      George,  open-air 

preaching  of,  4 
Whittier,    John   G.,  antislavery 

activity  of,  251 
Wiitworth,  Abraham,  cited,  l(j 
Wiley,  Isaac  W.,  cited,  394 
Williams,  Robert,  cited,  12,  13, 
14 

Wilson,  John,  cited,  105 
Winans,   William,    (|uoted,  259, 

272;  cited,  265 
Wright,   Richard,  missionary  to 

United  States,  13;  cited,  16 

Yearbry,  Joseph,  cited,  16 

Zion's  Herald,  opposition  nf  to 
slavery,  252 


Date  Due 


i 

FACULT' 

- 

Mm  J  r  11 

Mi»^-  

lllil   1  ■  III  11  _ 



I 


J^lf'iPll  I  PL.nn  r, 


ry  history 


1  1012  00021  0965 


 iiii^^^^^ 


i  I 


